Above Average Rating

Talk Discussion in 'BeerAdvocate Talk' started by Frankinstiener, May 3, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frankinstiener

    Frankinstiener Initiate (0) Jul 28, 2009 Illinois

    Just a thought: I think the site could benefit from an "above average" ranking. These would be beers scoring between 80-84 overall. I think 80-89 is too large of a range for the "good" description. Many of the beers between 80-84 would be better described as "above average". I mean if you put a letter grade on it they would get a B-. It would make the "good" rating more meaningful.

    95-100 world class
    90-94 exceptional
    85-89 good
    80-84 above average
    70-79 average
    <70 poor
     
    nsheehan likes this.
  2. TheMultiYeast

    TheMultiYeast Initiate (0) Oct 11, 2011 Vermont

    But then 80-82 would have to be "slightly above average."
     
    kemoarps likes this.
  3. Frankinstiener

    Frankinstiener Initiate (0) Jul 28, 2009 Illinois

    Nope the 80's would be cut in half just like the 90's are now. More better.
     
  4. ChanChan

    ChanChan Maven (1,341) Dec 12, 2009 California

    If you add the "above average" you would have to change the "good" into "very good." I mean, I don't see how "good" is better than "above average", but "very good" would work! Know what I mean?
     
    fredmugs likes this.
  5. leedorham

    leedorham Initiate (0) Apr 27, 2006 Washington

    95-100 Enjoyable
    90-94 Good beer to have with lunch
    70-89 Don't bother
    <70 For the morbidly curious
     
  6. JAXSON

    JAXSON Maven (1,336) Dec 15, 2005 Pennsylvania
    Trader

    These rating scales are skewed too high, IMO. I think people should use more of the rating scale, especially on the lower end. When I actually used to rate beers on here, I found I had mostly "red" ratings, where I gave a lower score than the average score. Some of the raters I respect the most have mostly "red" ratings. I think part of the problem is that some people just rate every barrel aged beer a 4.4+, though I think "average" should be more in the 60-70 range.
     
    bubseymour and SpeedwayJim like this.
  7. gcamparone

    gcamparone Pooh-Bah (2,131) Dec 6, 2011 Rhode Island
    Pooh-Bah Trader

    I think a 100 should be reserved for a 4.6+ instead of 4.5+
     
  8. bubseymour

    bubseymour Grand Pooh-Bah (4,800) Oct 30, 2010 Maryland
    Pooh-Bah Trader

    I agree and have been thinking about the way I've been rating my beers. If we are rating using between 1 and 5 scale then 2.5 should be "middle of the road". I think most people (including myself in error I realize) tend to give "middle of the road" beers between a 3.5 and 4. Usually something I don't care for too much I rate below a 3.5 but that should be 2.5 and below.

    Here is how I currently seem to rate beers (sort of a combo between my personal taste for the beer but also to weigh the rating some for how it compares within its peer group / style of beer as well)

    4.75 - 5 = The super-elite beers that I find spectacular to my taste buds and are noticeable well crafted gems
    4.25 - 4.75 = Beers that I really, really like and want to go back to again and again, but don't quite have all of the characteristics to put them in the super elite class of beers
    3.75-4.25 = Beers that I like and enjoy but perhaps don't go out of my way to get them. Somewhat pedestrian yet tasty enough.
    3 - 3.75 = Beers that aren't quite as well crafted nor as tasty as other options, but I don't have too much trouble finishing them
    2-3 = Beers that I don't like at all. Usually am able to finish them (barely), but they are poorly made and taste is somewhat unpleasant
    <2 is a drainpour. Something is horrible off tasting, noticeably poorly crafted, badly skunked or spoiled etc or just too hard to continue drinking with no pleasure at all

    IMO...I should give more 2.5-3.5 ratings for many beers pedestrian beers that I may give closer to 4 ratings. I'm too nice I guess, or I just like most beers I sample.
     
    JAXSON likes this.
  9. Todd

    Todd Founder (13,518) Aug 23, 1996 Finland
    STAFF Mod Team Society Pooh-Bah

    This general discussion has been brought up before, and over the year's it's become very clear that if everyone had their way everyone would do things a bit differently. We've put a lot of thought into our system over the years, are constantly evaluating it and listening to feedback.
    1. The OP is simply suggesting that we split the 80s range.
    2. For those who keep on creating their own "average" rating. We have a 1-5 scale. As we don't start at zero, 3 is average; not 2.5. Rate accordingly.
    3. We have a wider range for poor, average and good, and tighter range for exceptional and world-class. It works and keeps things simple.
    4. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    To the OP: Thanks for the suggestion, but we'll be keeping things as is for now.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.