The score doesn't match the details.

So, if you buy an Imperial Stout and the beer really drinks more like an Oatmeal Stout (including ABV and all characteristics), you aren't going to be disappointed that you didn't get the IS you wanted?

My rating would reflect it.

 

I try to follow the apparent intent of the instructions on this site for numerical rating; that is, rate to the style definition. I use the text portion of my review to describe my personal experience with the beer with regard to how much I like it or not. If my personal preference is different from the style definition I state it. Those comments come in handy when i go back through through the records of the beers I have reviewed. If I am not overly familiar with a style I either study up on it using various sources or I don't rate the beer. Nothing says you have to rate everything you drink. In fact, when looking at the numbers of beers that some people are rating in the matter of a couple days, I seriously doubt their ability to discern the nuances of the beers....or be a functioning human for that matter; seems like little more than a race to see who can rate the most sometimes.

 

Lots of people seem to store up a number of reviews and them put them all in at once

 

That’s why you look at overall ratings. If anyone rates Heady 3 - 3.5 I’d just throw it out, I’ve had it enough to know better. Maybe it’s just not his thing.

 

Exactly. Hard to be fair if you hate the style. I don’t rate all that much, certainly not if it’s a style I’m iffy on.

I buy on what a like to drink; Period. I don’t care what it scores if I like it. I don’t buy by score by style, I don’t care. I buy what I like. So enjoyment is goal #1.

 

That's great if you are always buying what you have already had in the past. When I go to the store to get a beer I have not tried yet, and am faced with various options in a preferred style I want to know how those options stack up against the benchmark for the style. I don't care a bit about someone's personal assessment of whether it is "good" compared to their completely undefined personal taste preference that bears little resemblance to the style definition. If someone doesn't like a style or knows nothing about the style, please do us all a favor and don't rate the beer.

 

Your right, it’s unfair it rate a style that you don’t like or your not familiar with, it helps no one. I do pay attention to certain BAs opinions, so I pick my expert, but generally I buy new beers by brewery with a solid reputation on quality in a style I like.

 

I actually thought Focal Banger was better from the can.

 

It's more a respectable nod. Recent example for me was 3F Permanent Funeral. It's a huge beer that rips your tongue clean off which isn't my preference, but I can respect it for what it is - a hell of a beer. There's nothing wrong with it objectively and hits all the markers for a really great high IBU Imperial IPA. With all that considered if I rated it a 2 because I "didn't like it" that would be absolutely stupid.

 

I think aggressive pours introduces too much oxygen, and hurts the beer sometimes. I also usually drink them from the can, not always, but enough to suspect that less oxygen is generally preferable. I have a bad nose so I don’t usually get a lot of of a glass anyways, sometimes I enjoy looking at it while I drink it, depends on my mood.

 

Wish I could "love" this post. I'll just toast my next beer to you instead. cheers.

 

I'm all for trying to like every style. Then I can rate them all (NA that is)!

Anyway it looks my rating is on the "hedonistic" side (as in "Tasting Beer"). Or how do I feel about the beer? Not really capable of trying to apply the alleged style criteria and the "rating by style". Most honest this way.

It's almost all about how "good" it is. To whom? You guess it.

 

Maybe this isn't the best place to add this but I stumbled across this useless "review" when I was looking up a beer today. This serves no purpose other than to humor the author, who just gave a "4" to every rating category. I hid the brewery name and beer name to protect the innocent. "Man, big shoutout to Brewery XXXX. They went big out of the gates like Ron Jeremy and they delivered. Their spot is massive for being a new brewery, yet like King Tut, they have owned it! This one right here, Beer XXXX, is just a nice, soft, New England IPA. It won’t blow you away like the USS Texas, but it’s still solid like when my baby mama shifts her Jetta into third gear." Jeeeezus....what a waste of electrons and keystrokes as a beer "review".

 

Yeah, agree on this sentiment. Most of the reviews of beers I read are inline with my experience as well, so they are well written and consistent. But I really hate reviewers who are clearly not fans of the style of the beer they are reviewing, then give it low marks for the exact same reasons I would do a 180 and give an opposing viewpoint.

It's easy to skip past those though. Pick out the reviews that come from someone who understands the style/beer they are reviewing and write intelligent/meaningful reviews.

 

I struggle with rating american lagers, because shouldn't they be just as good as any other lager, craft or import?
But, if I'm rating it as an Macro American Lager does that mean, The King deserves a 4.0-5.0? Because, that is rating to that specific style?
And a light beer would deserve a 4.0-5.0 rating due to style?
I'm pretty much a Noob, but I'm curious to see what what people say about rating these beers as typically they do not rate high at BA.

 

I'm of the opinion that "The King" should get close to a 5.0 rating (I don't like its aftertaste, maybe because of the rice?) along with the other major macros because they all taste almost the same and have similar look, smell, feel, etc. in the American Adjunct Lager category. Bud Light, Miller Lite, etc. are in the same virtual tie with most of the competitors in the Light America Lager style.

Those two styles are so light-flavored that it's difficult to differentiate between beers from the lesser national brands without some serious tasting research, but some folks probably can do it. Raters who give low scores to any beers in these styles just because of a lack of flavor are doing a disservice to those beers. So don't hesitate to give a 5.0 when rating to style when comparing a beer to The King.

 

I completely agree, when I see the King get a rating of 1.8, I think it’s being compared to an ipa or something similar. Rating to style sometimes contradicts your enjoyment to drinking said beer. If I fairly rated the King objectively to style I’d say it’s 4.25 or so to style. I think it’s a bit over carbonated, a bit thin, no real head retention to speak of, but I don’t get much in the way of being off, its very consistent, clean. That’s it a simple lager that’s checks most boxes, but gets killed by say Pivo Pils, which by comparison might also be 4.25. Do they deliver the same level of enjoyment? Personally no, but they’re both 4.25 beers. So are they equal? Well hell no, so rating to style definitely shows its warts a bit too. BTW the numbers used are entirely fictional, and a good reason why I don’t take ratings too seriously. I but what gives me enjoyment, scores be damned.

 

Very interesting thread and opinions. For the 600 beers I’ve entered here and RateBeer (I have a sad backlog of about 1,400 offline I hope to cut paste and enter over the next six months), I find that I am consistently below average here around .4 vs the average, and about .3 above average on RateBeer.

I use 3.0 as the average / OK beer for a style as my baseline. For most styles the ratings overall work out, but wouldn’t use any site to count on a proper rating for an AAL. My Budweiser rating of 3.37 is a 44% rdev% here (same issue at RateBeer). I rate Busch Light 2.43, it’s my second highest +rdev% at 34%. Many raters simply put 1s across the board for AALs as beer “political” commentary or to posture/pose (AB Sucks, AALs suck, this smells and/or tastes like piss). The latter is more consistent of a kinky **** preference than an objective beer review.

I’d say NEIPAs and Imperial Stouts are the opposite, the average beer for many scores a 4-4.5, primarily because the user likes the style and/or high ABV vs. an objective assessment of that particular beer vs. the standard within the style. Nearly every stout or haze can’t objectively be world class or excellent.

The law of large averages takes care of beers with hundreds/thousands of reviews, but a majority of beers either have less than the minimum to be assigned a score, or are barely over the minimum, which gives poor scores disproportionate influence.

I learned review and scoring over experience, NBW/NBS is a great resource both to observe others scoring, and expanding ones beer review vocabulary and breadth of proper consideration of each component. I continue to look for improvement in reviews and text, it’s a continuous process. I also try to prevent my personal bias, it takes knowledge and experience. It has been an enjoyable journey for me, and love learning from others here who are much further down the road in their beer journey.

 

I think close to all beers are "good" nowadays. Quality control and tasting panels do the job. And some creativity shouldn't give a beer a worse rating if it doesn't completely comply with some narrow style criteria.

It looks my cut-off for better than average is about 4.