Ratings/Ticks within posts

Yes, please!

 

I'm not understanding what you're asking for. One could always just link to their review in a post. And wouldn't a users average score being used for a given beer only lead to every beer having the same score? What am I missing?

 

Why would one person have different scores to start with? Why would anybody trust the opinion of someone who gives the same beer different scores? I'm just not grasping your plan here.

Admittedly, I'm a dense SOB, and I'm asking for clarification in a sincere way. I'm just not understanding.

 

I haven’t had a drop of alcohol tonight but I can’t understand most of the posts on this thread.

 

Again, I'm not understanding what your getting at, which is why I'm asking. But, this quote from your OP:

"Maybe a person's score for a given beer could be an average of all of their ratings and they could add ratings right in forum posts."

is why I'm confused. You seemingly suggest that ones average score for all beers could be posted in forum posts. Is this on a thread about a given beer? Or, do you think our average ratings (in my case for more than 4000 beers, across a majority of the styles) should just be automatically posted on every post we make?

It seems like you are suggesting that my "score for a given beer" should be the same as my average for all beers, regardless of style.

I'm not getting why you think our our average scores should be added to our forum posts. I admit that I'm dense. I'm sure there's a simple answer that I'm missing. But, as I said upthread, I am just not understanding what you're getting after here.

 

I think the idea here is:

Have a Coors Light on Monday and rate it at a 2.0. Have another on Wednesday and rate it 3.0. Your rating for Coors Light would be a 2.5.

Currently, if you rate the beer a second time, your rating would show as a 3.0.

?

 

My thoughts with how people use it may be somewhere else. I'd expect beers that commonly get multiple ratings from people would be a beer that is very inconsistent (ie. some terrible hazy IPAs to avoid) or thrives on its inconsistency (ie. wild ales/lambic). I can probably get this from reading a handful of reviews but it could be nice to get that as some point of data. And then also maybe see what the overall range is of the difference?

 

I agree that you can get a different reaction for the same beer at different times (heck, even from the same 6pk). But wouldn't be easy to just edit your original review? Then you could include the old and new notes and account for the differences.

 

I don't necessarily need this feature, but I can see how I'd use it. Like a Fitbit for beer!

My regular recently has been All Day IPA. Most days it hits around my rating of 3.75. But some days it's round and soft and full and smooth - just magnificent for a cheap available beer (4.00+). But other days it tastes like it was left on the back porch through a long hot weekend (2.75). Cheers!

 

I'm pretty sure that @Todd already said that he had no intention of pursuing this so, that being the case, I would propose a totally hypothetical credibility-weighted cumulative average rating where the most recent review receives 40% credibility, the prior 30%, the third 20% and the fourth most recent a 10% weighting. Anything beyond the 4th oldest review is assumed to have no credibility because a) nice round numbers, and b) there's something wrong with you that you even have time to review the same beer that many times. However, based on your reviews to-date, I think it would also be possible - again, if @Todd thinks it worthwhile - to develop a trend factor derived from the four prior reviews which could be applied to the average rating and used to predict the next rating, thereby saving OP the trouble of having to drink that beer again.

 

Hands down agree, and especially for this beer!

 

Yeah, that's what I took from the OP. My palate is variable, beers are variable, and both will influence my scoring of a given beer.
If you are really serious about this level of refinement in your scoring, you could always create a spreadsheet to do the weighted scoring for you (and save Todd a lot of work).