1/4 points

When writing a review, your final score can be much more granular than when ticking a had. There are 9^5 combinations of final scores for reviews.

 

Agreed, though I personally feel that more control over your score is better - I too would like to see .25 increments on reviews.

 

Count me in for more accurate review score too.

 

definitely another vote for the .25 in reviewing. it would be great to dole out some 3.75's or 3.25's where they are warranted instead of being forced to lump a score in with a 3.5 or 4.0.

 

don't think it's a huge deal either way, but i think it would be a good change.

i see why you wouldn't want it too cut up, since people don't fully agree on the meaning of the numbers to begin with... but i don't think .25 is a problem. as far as i can see, just helps differentiate stuff like "pretty good," which is helpful.

 

I agree. I think more detail cant help vs. generalities.

Cheers!

 

Agree with above points on this, so here's another vote for 0.25 increments, if for any reason, uniformity between Had's & full review point systems.

 

Would love to see 0.25 increments.

 

Sounds cool to me.

 

I am would like to chime as a vote AGAINST this. How can you really say something is X +/- 0.25? The mouthfeel on this beer is a 3.25? I think having it at half point increments is really the ideal way of keeping actual reviews. I can see the 0.25 for hads only to make things a bit more free when assigning solely a number to a beer. With actual reviews I think it will just get too messy and too nitpicky having to decide what that extra 0.25 is going to equate to in terms of scoring a beer. And here is the standard by which I review (which is pretty straight forward anyways):

5 - exceptional (cannot be beat)
4.5 - very good/great
4 - good
3.5 - pretty good
3 - average
2.5 - pretty poor
2 - poor
1.5 - pretty horrible
1 - horrible

 

just throw on "the low side of" or "the high side of" any of those qualitative descriptions, and you've got a place for .25.

i agree with the spirit of your objection (cutting it up even further, like .1 increments, would probably be bad, and i suspect it would lead to even more score inflation), but i think .25 is still fine.

 

adding additional options for those of us who like to distinguish a bit clearer shouldn't affect your reviewing style one bit. i too, follow the same word assignments to scores, but sometimes when doing a horizontal (5050 eclipse comes to mind) things are all good or very good/great and you'd like to distinguish that one is a bit superior than the other, but doesn't warrant a score of the full monty. i don't see how adding options should change anything for you.

 

But as one guy already pointed out, you already have 9^5 possible outcomes from the current system (59049 possible combinations of scores). If you can't nail down a solid score from that... c'mon now.

 

That's a cool upgrayedd with a double d for a double dose of review pimpin'.

 

that does indeed show that review scores were more intricate than had scores, even though had scores had .25 increments.

however, it's not an argument against individual elements (taste, mouthfeel, etc) benefiting from finer gradation. it's just a refutation of the claim that "had" is more specific than "review".

---

anyway, glad for the change.

 

Sweet. I find myself fudging review numbers sometimes. If I think a beer taste and overall rating is a 4.25 I might give it a 4.5 and then drop the overall to 4.0 or something to at least get it close. Kinda annoying sometimes. To me, there is a pretty big gap score-wise between a 4.0 and a 4.5 rating in a category.

 

I'm extremely suspicious of *any* (more) changes to review scoring. The last two have been difficult enough for those of us trying to maintain consistent reviews.