Beer Rating Curiosity

Cream Ale and Malt Liquor are only going to be OK at best.

 

could be bocks are harder to make.
could also be rating bias (as opposed to genuine preference; e.g. lots of high profile stouts come out, people put more effort into getting them, people rate them higher as a consequence of that).

could be people like stouts more.

could be fewer bocks made, fewer thus made well. fewer examples to use to grade them highly. who knows.

 

True, but they are still trying to be something - beast mode is trying to be a roasty malt forward beer. Global Warmer is a hoppy red ale with a solid malt backbone - you can still objectively rate how well the brewer has hit their mark even if it crosses over traditional boundaries of styles.
I think Sierra Nevada Hoppy Lager is another great example - a hoppy imperial pilsner? No such thing really, but now there is one, and you can still rate based on how close the beer is to their goal.

 

You'd be amazed how wide a variation there is in BJCP rated competitions too, even with style guidelines available to read while rating.

The best value of the review system is to find some folks who review a lot of beers and use them to see if it is one you will like. Trying to use a general rating system is not gonna work.

When you read reviews for IIPA that complain about things like "way too bitter", or for Wild Ales, "this tastes like it might be infected." you are reminded of some folks who rate here.

I know this wasn't the thrust of the OP exactly, but it is interesting to note that if certain styles have a higher average than... average, it might also be they have a high percentage of folks who don't rate to style, and/or who rate thoughtlessly.

 

It would be snarky to say "thank you Captain Obvious", but I will not.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, to many's disagreement. Bigger, bolder styles taste better. The better something tastes, the higher I am going to rate it. I can see how it can be argued that more basic styles should be rated within their category, but there's no way in hell I'm giving an awesome brown ale the same rating as an awesome imperial stout. It just wouldn't make sense to me or my overall rating list.

 

I get where you are coming from but as you put it a "true/original pilsner" and an "American pilsner" are two different styles, no? Just like an English IPA and American IPA are two different styles.

My argument is that it is in many ways factual how much an American Pilsner represents an American Pilsner, not how well an American Pilsner represents what you call a true or original pilsner. How "good" an American Pilsner (or any beer of any style) is is up to individual tastes, not a set of guidelines.

 

The only two Pilsener distinctions on this site are Czech Pilsener and German Pilsener. American brewers try to mimic these styles. However, for someone who has never had a Czech Pilsener brewed in the Czech Republic or a German Pilsener brewed in Germany, they wouldn't be able to determine how well an american representation represented the style. For someone who has had either of those style of beers from breweries in those regions, they would have a much better understanding for what to look for in the style.

 

My point still stands about different styles within the same larger style of beer. I was simply using your wordage as far as "true pilsner" vs. "American pilsner". But alas if i change my wording with yours, a Czech pilsner would not represent a German Pilsner.

That is basically my point. What are they "looking for in the style" if not their personal opinion on how good a beer is? They would have to be looking at how well the beer matches someone else's guidelines.

 

I appreciate what you are saying here and it is similar to the topic I have discussed in this thread with BoardwalkBock. There certainly is some variability even within seasoned judges, but it is the much larger variability in the lay beer drinker / beer snob that makes beeradvocate so useful, in my opinion.

I've never bought a beer a second time because it represents a style perfectly, I've only bought a beer a second time because I liked it the first time.

 

I'm dying laughing imagining pulling a seat up to the bar and ordering an Imperial Malt Liquor. "Gimme a forty of simcoe... no wait... citra...no, the Eu de Turpentine..."

 

Fair enough thanks for not being snarky. I will return the favor by not suggesting you bother to actually read the other thread...

 

I try to be as objective as possible to the style and not the beer. For instance I just don't like Wits and Hefeweizens, so I generally stay away from rating them, although I have accidentally picked up one or two in the past and I tried to be as open minded as possible when rating them but they still got lower scores than a really good IPA or stout, which are the two styles I prefer. I will have to say though that I am developing a taste for the complexities of wild ales and one of my 2 5's ever was given to a sour the other was to a BA stout. Go figure!

 

I think thus is a great discussion!

I love DIPAs. Sucks, Hop Stoopid, Enjoy By, Maximus, etc., etc. all grass beers and highly rated.

However, I don't always want a super hopped punch you in the face DIPA. Sometimes I want a crisp refreshing Pilsner. At those times I want to know what are good Pilsner. FYI:Try Steamwhistle out of Toronto - I think it's a great Pilsner for when I want a Pilsner. Or a lager - what's the best lager to enjoy?

Or hef for when I want a hef. Or a Belgian Quad or Tripel.

I love different styles of beer at different times. I'd like to be able to know what the best in styles are.

 

Statistics showing that beers are rated lower on this site as those are not as bold of flavor. nice work, but it shows the bias of this site.

 

Right, wrong or indifferent, I rate to my personal taste, not to the correctness of the style. I feel that's more important information to the masses as I feel that's the typical consensus here and it helps me determine if I should pursue a new beer that I haven't tried myself. Almost every time it's a 90 or above, I know it'll be a solid offering, regardless of style.

 

I am not sure if it is the same thread, but I then made a list of the top 250 beers of fame with more than 3,000 reviews, and that list has a much better spread of styles and obviously much easier access to most of the beers. There were 100 on the list so I made that my personal top 100 beers to seek out and try - my attempt to get around the bias and get a nice list that represented the best example of most styles of beer that are relatively easy to track down (some exceptions obviously!)

that is how I have worked around the bias to use the lists!

 

As long as humans are involved, just call it a beautifully imperfect rating system.....that requires some drinking.

 

That would be a better list to use. Less whales and rare beers that are obtainable.

Some of the best beers I have ever had don't rate highly on this site as they are some of the classic styles. No excitement from the hunt, no rare flavors.

 

Very true - but you are limiting your options for certain styles. From a prior thread where I looked at exactly this - 24% of IPAs are rated 90 or higher, but only 3% of pilsners / Helles Lagers (Czech Pils, German Pils and Helles combined)

http://www.beeradvocate.com/communi...g-beers-on-average.238371/page-2#post-3069100

There are so few beers of certain styles over a 90, you really limit your options and it is driven by rating bias, not necessarily quality