Site Changes: Beer Hads, Full Reviews & Ratings

Discussion in 'BeerAdvocate Talk' started by Todd, Jan 8, 2013.

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

    Auracom Zealot (577) Nov 5, 2010 Illinois
    Beer Trader

    I don't use Untappd for a reason. Blending in Hads to overall scores significantly dumbs down the entire review section of this site. This is an uninspired idea that just follows precedent from other beer social sites/apps. Whatever, I'll continue to follow a select few who do write-ups I value.
  2. meanmutt

    meanmutt Crusader (717) Feb 6, 2012 Ohio
    Beer Trader

    I use the "Hads" all the time and I love it as a quick way to log my beers. Obviously, I put some thought into the score I attach to a particular beer, otherwise it would be kinda pointless. That being said, I have no doubt that people doing reviews are putting much more time and effort into scoring the beer. I like the idea of incorporating "Hads" into a beers score, but I think that it needs to either have less weighting than a review does, or be listed as a separate score.
    Zach136, cmannes and ncaudle like this.
  3. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Site Editor (6,365) Dec 8, 2007 North Carolina
    Subscriber Beer Trader

    Yes, it is mentioned in another thread in the Feedback section - it appears for all reviews (not just your own) but gives an error if you try to delete the review that someone else posted.
  4. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,551) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Subscriber

    Bug fixes:
    • "Delete Your Review" link; dont' worry, there's code that doesn't allow it to work if it's not your review.
    • Review icon (red/blue) when viewing beer lists (top lists, styles, brewery pages, etc.) is now displaying properly.
    • Flood check/time limit between posting Hads.
    • We will be adding a toggle to view full reviews or Hads.
  5. Thehuntmaster

    Thehuntmaster Initiate (0) Sep 2, 2009 South Africa

    All opinions matter. I think what people are worried about is that the lack of information provided by a had could lead to abuse. I can report a troll review, but there is no way to tell if a had is a troll or a true feeling of the BA.
  6. Onenote81

    Onenote81 Poo-Bah (1,879) May 27, 2008 North Carolina

    Has the long-lasting "bug" for the Place review icon (blue/red) been fixed yet? :wink:
    drabmuh likes this.
  7. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Site Editor (6,365) Dec 8, 2007 North Carolina
    Subscriber Beer Trader

    Awesome, thanks for the quick response on the bug fixes.

    Question on the toggle for full reviews or hads, will that effect only your entries or all for a specific beer?
  8. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,551) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Subscriber

    We'd like to put it on Hads pages for users, as well as beer pages. So if you're on Heady Topper and wanted to view just full reviews you'll be able to.

    We'd also like to create two new icons so users can quickly identify if they gave a beer a full review or a Hads when viewing lists.
  9. coreyfmcdonald

    coreyfmcdonald Savant (953) Nov 13, 2008 Georgia
    Beer Trader

    Agreed on the hads/gots complaint, but a few notes:
    • Including hads in the score of the beer is going to skew the beer scores fairly dramatically. I'd be willing to bet the more intensely flavored beers will be bumped higher than the more balanced/nuanced beers. Think Chocolate Rain versus a German Pilsener. I realize this bias already exists - I just think this will further it since people will be more inclined to use hads at tastings/festivals. Using only reviews to make up the score is also a bit of a filter to allow GENERALLY better input on the beer.
    • Including a list of recent hads scores on a beer page is pretty useless. I use reviews when making purchases to make sure the flavor profile matches what I like. This will now be harder to do.
    • I would imagine you are going after the Untappd market with a mobile app and allowing multiple hads. I believe this would move hads further away from reviews, not closer to them. If I were to use this in this manner, I'd like to be able to review a beer, check into a beer, and "had rate" a beer completely separately. I'm sure you've had the foresight to think about how this will work more than I have, though.
    • Also, 100 characters for a review is insane. Most of my appearance descriptions take more than that, and my reviews are not very long. I think setting a larger character requirement may allow slightly less reviews, but will raise the average quality to the reviews making them more useful which will in turn make more people use them and use your site more. The reviews on the other site are entirely useless and that's why I don't use that site to look at reviews. This may be my biggest issue with the changes. I think it sets the standard/culture of writing reviews.
    drtth and CwrwAmByth like this.
  10. mjohnson17

    mjohnson17 Devotee (443) Apr 29, 2012 Illinois
    Beer Trader

    I agree with this. I think listing just the numbers from the "hads" group clutters the actual reviews as you scroll down the page. Any consideration to making this cleaner? IMO the reason to scroll down to look at individual reviews is to read more in-dept into peoples thoughts of the beer, not to just see a bunch of numbers.

    Add the "hads" to the beers overall score - I'm fine with.
    Displaying individual's "had" rating - I'm okay with as long as it's separated from the actual reviews with content.
    Mixing the display of actual reviews and "had" ratings - too cluttered and too much data to sift through.

    EDIT: You may have just addressed my concern while I was writing my concern :grinning:
  11. sevenarts

    sevenarts Initiate (0) Jul 19, 2011 New York

    I think the ability to view beer pages with or without the hads inline should be a user setting. When I click on a beer page it's because I want to read the reviews, I don't want to have to toggle the hads off everytime I click on a beer. I just want to set that once in my user preferences, and then if for whatever reason I want to see the hads, I can toggle them *on*.

    Otherwise I think these changes are fine.
  12. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Site Editor (6,365) Dec 8, 2007 North Carolina
    Subscriber Beer Trader

    I think that is exactly what Todd is proposing in his response a couple before yours.
  13. Hanzo

    Hanzo Initiate (0) Feb 27, 2012 Virginia

    I think as long as you can filter the hads out of the reviews people will be generally ok with this, but yeah, having them mixed in with the written reviews is a bit of an eyesore.
  14. flyingmick

    flyingmick Aspirant (260) Jul 3, 2012 Texas

    I really like this post. It lays out some logic in a more beneficial way than other reviewers going on about the evils of tickers. It reminds me of the coding on a site like Yelp that automatically makes efforts to filter spammy reviews of bars and restaurants, which people should appreciate.

    Here's my disclaimer: I don't review beers online, though I do value well-written reviews. I favor discussing beers with friends and tracking hads for my own purposes.
  15. flyingmick

    flyingmick Aspirant (260) Jul 3, 2012 Texas

    Having to trudge through who Hadded the beer when looking at reviews is a pain in the ass, though.
    champ103 and JulianC like this.
  16. RightAJ

    RightAJ Initiate (0) May 17, 2011 Pennsylvania

    Sounds an awful lot like an Untappd imposter to me, something which is completely different, and should stay separate, from reviews. Simply putting a 1-5 number as a rating is not a 'review.' Some of the reviews are weak as it was (one or two liners), but this makes writing a thought-out review basically futile.
    chinabeergeek and JulianC like this.
  17. Treebs

    Treebs Initiate (0) Apr 18, 2011 Illinois

    Agreed. I was planning on using the "Hads" function in the near future, but now that it isn't separate from my own Reviews I will not be. It was great the way it was before, I don't see the point of the combination.
    JulianC likes this.
  18. steveh

    steveh Poo-Bah (1,971) Oct 8, 2003 Illinois

    Gotta agree with this -- I liked being able to see exactly when I reviewed a beer.
    drtth, chinabeergeek and Etan like this.
  19. merc7186

    merc7186 Initiate (0) Dec 5, 2010 New York

    I am so against the changes to the ratings system now. As an Actual Reviewer, I think I can speak for many of the other BAs that Actually Review beers and have contributed to the site, to make it what it is. Combining Actual Reviews with Quick Ticks is an insult to me after the 950+ reviews that I have contributed as opposed to somebody who took 3 seconds to scroll down a pre-made score. Is BA going to start offering stupid badges too for quick ticks???

    Segregate the scores to serperate the people who took the time to enjoy the beer as opposed to a hack that sniffed a 1oz sample. Apples and Oranges.
    jmdrpi, morimech, cavedave and 3 others like this.
  20. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,551) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Subscriber

    I've been playing around with the data for weeks before this change; a change that we didn't take lightly and discussed for months. Prior to the merge I found that most sets of rating averages were very similar. It's expected that some beer ratings will shift when nearly 1 million ratings are applied, but I wasn't finding any wild differences that made me pause.
  21. coreyfmcdonald

    coreyfmcdonald Savant (953) Nov 13, 2008 Georgia
    Beer Trader

    Not only this, but I think this promotes the use of hads and short reviews instead of longer (generally more well thought out) reviews. Though people will do what they want, people tend to do the bare minimum even if it isn't in their best interest or in the best interest of the group.
  22. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,551) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Subscriber

    If you need them, less human friendly dates appear in your personal lists.
    steveh likes this.
  23. coreyfmcdonald

    coreyfmcdonald Savant (953) Nov 13, 2008 Georgia
    Beer Trader

    Some thoughts on incentives for better reviews:

    Maybe reviews being incentivized by people liking them or in some other manner would help, but I think BA needs to promote the creation of well thought out reviews. There are certainly ways this can be done, some may be good ideas some not:
    • Allowing "liking" of reviews
    • Requiring a larger amount of characters
    • BA somehow endorsing a review or reviewer
    I think one of the big differences between BA and the other site is that the reviews on BA tend to be much better. There is a reason for this and BA needs to figure out what it is and make sure it stays that way. They can even promote it even further to get even more useful reviews.
  24. MarcatGSB

    MarcatGSB Initiate (0) Jan 8, 2011 Michigan

    I'd completely agree...when I see theothersites scores, I really just dismiss them. They don't really mean much to me, just for that reason. I don't feel there is a whole lot of thought that is put into 80% of the reviews on that site.
    coreyfmcdonald likes this.
  25. ThePorterSorter

    ThePorterSorter Meyvn (1,436) Aug 10, 2010 Oregon
    Beer Trader

    I completely agree, this is absolutely screwing things up for me in reviewing. Not to mention my #600th review (for which I am saving a nice bottle for) has been passed over night with the merger. Obviously I'm not going to let a good bottle go to waste, but I savor my centennial reviews as a benchmarks of my contribution to the site.

    And reviews were also lost in this process?
  26. Treebs

    Treebs Initiate (0) Apr 18, 2011 Illinois

    Once the point system/trophy system is brought back this could be a perfect opportunity to reward the people that take the time to review like on the old site. Maybe a review is worth two points while a "tick" is worth half a point. I'm just spit balling here, but this could be another nice incentive. I also agree with the more character rule. This isn't RB and I don't want this to turn into a site where we have people reviewing a thimble of beer and their review is "black, tan head. Roasty and chocolate nose and taste. medium body. Easy drinking beer. will have again."
    fields336 and Etan like this.
  27. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,551) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Subscriber

    Good ideas, and I agree in part, but we also need to cater to the vast majority of our users/visitors who haven't been doing full reviews as they found it daunting, time consuming or they just weren't into it. Ignoring them would, and has been, a big mistake. Consider all of this a gateway beer, of sorts.

    That said, we also need to cater to, and encourage, those who want to contribute more. As mentioned here and elsewhere, we plan on launching a new achievements system (aka - our old Beer Karma system) that will provide incentives for users to contribute more. There's otherthings we can and will do too.
  28. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,551) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Subscriber

  29. stakem

    stakem Poo-Bah (5,019) Feb 20, 2009 Pennsylvania
    Beer Trader

    I realize this is the beginning stages and more changes are to come. I am trying to be positive about this and dont want to come across as someone who is against change. But here are some thoughts from the standpoint of someone who reviews and appreciates others who also take the time to write a formal review. When I want to learn about a me crazy but I like to actually read about it, not simply see a number and have that tell me if its good or not. I want to know why the beer is rated the way it is. Is it a dark fruity alcohol forward imperial stout or is it deep, dry and roasted with earthy flavors? Opinions and number-based scoring/reviewing are seemingly arbitrary in comparison to written descriptions and explanations.

    In the past I have been contacted by several brewers and owners of establishments thanking me for giving a detailed description/review of their product and/or establishment. I have never been complimented on a score or rate i have given. It is the quality of the content included that is/was helpful or insightful. I cant help but view these recent changes as a driving force to being encouraged to be more "ticker-like" and less thoughtful about the products being reviewed. I dont see much motivation for people to spend the time/effort to write a review anymore when you can now spend 30 seconds clicking had. I spend upwards of 30 minutes on many of my reviews some much longer others not so much. Go ahead, laugh at me.

    Regarding the recent removal of serving types. There were what 15,000 reviews or something deleted? I realize people were screwing the system and abusing it. But what percentage of those reviews were legit? I personally lost 70 reviews, a friend of mine lost 100. He reviews as adamently as I do. Together we essentially lost 42 hours worth of reviewing. I guess sitting here taking the time to figure that out is laughable by some standards. How would you feel knowing a weeks worth of your time was discarded or deemed irrelevent because of some bad eggs screwing the system?

    Moving forward, it will be interesting to see how things pan out and how this site differentiates itself or becomes more or less similar to others. This site has always stood out to me because of the quality of the content in reviews not the quick ticks and one liners that remark about when/where a beer was drank and with whom.
  30. papat444

    papat444 Initiate (0) Dec 28, 2006 Quebec (Canada)
    Beer Trader

    If you had multiple reviews for the same beer but different serving formats, they're gone except 1 review. Didn't affect me much as there was only 1 beer i reviewed more than once.
    Bitterbill likes this.
  31. coreyfmcdonald

    coreyfmcdonald Savant (953) Nov 13, 2008 Georgia
    Beer Trader

    Yep - that's 103 characters by the way if you didn't count.
  32. imbibehour

    imbibehour Poo-Bah (6,277) Mar 18, 2008 Maryland
    Supporter Subscriber Beer Trader

    I just took a quick peak to see what's different.

    I think what people are getting worked up about is the quality of reviews which now involves simply a had as well which people are not valuing as much.

    Anyone who has taken their salt on this site to do any real research, the bros have described how you should review a beer. It's all out there. What they (the bros) have no quality over is the content of the reviews, that's something that has been going on for day one. Although they have mentioned they delete some "bogus" ones.

    I don't get upset about what people write, however I do value some reviewers on here more than others without question simply because after reading their reviews I can decide for myself if they are worth it. Incorporating hads into the rating doesn't rumple me that much. It also looks like my overall ratings for certain brews havent changed much either.

    Bogus, useless ratings for whatever reason will continue regardles, the bros have NO control over this, so I wouldn't be getting upset about lists changing, or whatever.

    I think there is no question though that reviewers who review often should have some sort of recognition. There are FAR more people than myself who have reviewed a lot and those contributions really are what make this site "useful". Many of these reviewers also write and review VERY WELL. So karma, an icon, a rating for users, some sort of recognition, I think is worthy, but as we all know karma isn't going away as the bros stated.

    I am also keen on the beer stats area, which the bros have mentioned would be coming also, such as the how many brews from state, style, that big count section... that would be dissapointing to loose that.

    So keep on plugging away, and lets see where this is leading.
    LeRose and Todd like this.
  33. Centennial

    Centennial Initiate (0) Nov 9, 2009 Vermont

    I am not a programmer, but doesn't this make it very easy for bots to infiltrate the site and pump up certain beers? Inbev has the infrastructure to do so and most likely will. I thought only using reviews with a full write up was the way you protected the integrity of the ratings on the site.
  34. ThePorterSorter

    ThePorterSorter Meyvn (1,436) Aug 10, 2010 Oregon
    Beer Trader

    Well this comes into play when you've "had" a beer during a tasting (aka got. 2oz sample), at a bar, ect.. And then decided to acquire that beer to formally write a full review. I would have deleted my "had" reviews after writing the full reviews had I known they would be removed.

    Todd did clarify that the lost reviews were backed up and will be emailed at some point.

    However, I still would like to know how many full reviews I've written vs. "had," which doesn't seem to be covered with the toggle option to sift through the two when looking @ a beer's profile page.
  35. Auror

    Auror Defender (642) Jan 1, 2010 Massachusetts
    Beer Trader

    I understand the need to compete with other sites with Hads and check-ins. That's important for the site's future.

    That being said... I sincerely believe that people can and will continue to use BA as a reference site in addition to a check-in site in the future. The reference side is the more important function of the site and a key differentiator from other sites out there, in my opinion. This should be emphasized while co-opting some of the social check-in features from other sites/apps out there. The 100-character minimum, as others have mentioned, cheapens this ideal. The 100-character min seems to be attempting to bridge the gap between Hads and Reviews, but I think they are better left separate. There is essentially no increase in value to the site from a Had to a 100-char review, and just adds more clutter.

    I don't have much problem with adding Hads to review scores, though. I had a feeling it might be coming, and people who check-in and quick-rate should have their voices heard in overall scores. However, I'm not sure counting a Had with the same weight as a Review makes sense. You are more likely to get an accurate score from an average, current minimum-sized review, because individuals are forced to consider all of the components that make up the beer. There is power in the huge amount of data from Hads, but I think quality over quantity should be the basis of the scores. Maybe the Bros. looked at possible weights, but I'd probably start with a 60/40 weight split and see how it affected things.
    Zach136 likes this.
  36. Hanzo

    Hanzo Initiate (0) Feb 27, 2012 Virginia

    Really, if there were a way to add an option like other sites have where you can mark whether a review was helpful or not, and then a way to sort by most helpful it would be perfect.
  37. Auror

    Auror Defender (642) Jan 1, 2010 Massachusetts
    Beer Trader

    Really the big winner from all this is Vermont. Heady to #1 overall and HF with 10 beers in the Top 100.
  38. cneville

    cneville Initiate (0) Sep 16, 2010 Ohio

    cavedave and Todd like this.
  39. cosmicevan

    cosmicevan Poo-Bah (3,322) Dec 13, 2009 New York
    Beer Trader

    agreed. this sucks...and not in the great way that lagunitas sucks.

    you now have to sift through pages and pages to see actual thoughts on a beer. i clicked on the most recent reviewed beer as of writing this comment ( and there are 2 reviews on the first page. 2, that's it...out of 25. i'm very glad to know that most people seem to have "had" this beer at above a 4.0, but i'm interested in the flavor profile...was the bottle a gusher...what was the carb level like, how did it smell? knowing that something is "good" is definitely nice, but i get that from the overall score. i want to read words about it to see if it is something that will meet the needs of what i'm craving or what i like.

    this is what set BA apart from untappd and ratebeer...commentary. even if everyone wrote that it was roasty and or had a dark fruit flavor profile...that's fine, at least it told me something about what to expect.

    if you HAVE TO incorporate "Hads" into the reviews, at least give those of us who like the review system a way to filter out just the numbers. after all, you give us a way to filter on if it was a bottle or from the tap..."Had" vs "Review" is a much more needed filter.

    it is really unhelpful to see a sea of 4+ numbers and then a few ~2 "Had" ratings. why were those brews given a 2? is there a potential infection? does someone just not like the style? who knows? i'll have to scroll through pages and pages of data to find out.

    please reconsider this change or at least tweak it...i really don't understand why BA which is the only unique site for actual info on beer would go the way of the others that are strictly number based. the others do it better than you (no offense) and if you are going to copy them, you are going to be a cheap knockoff. the reason we review on BA and check BA reviews is because of the content. now that the content is gone, i don't see people sticking around less the forums...and with the wrath of behavioral corrections, plenty of people are either forced out of here or head for greener pastures where they can speak their mind more freely.
  40. Hanzo

    Hanzo Initiate (0) Feb 27, 2012 Virginia

    They are going to make it where you can filter out the hads and just see actual written reviews.

    cosmicevan likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  • About Us

    Founded in 1996, BeerAdvocate (BA) is your go-to resource for beer powered by an independent community of enthusiasts and professionals dedicated to supporting and promoting better beer.

    Learn More
  • Our Community

    Comprised of consumers and industry professionals, many of whom started as members of this site, our community is one of the oldest, largest, and most respected beer communities online.
  • Our Events

    Since 2003 we've hosted over 60 world-class beer festivals to bring awareness to independent brewers and educate attendees.
  • Our Magazine

    Support uncompromising beer advocacy and award-winning, independent journalism with a print subscription to BeerAdvocate magazine.