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. imbibehour

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

    Examining a little bit, as now the site is getting filled more.

    I think for, "visual appearances" with the beer review section, the Hads are kind of giant gap and a bit of a distraction. It's visually not that appealing, as now you have review chunks all over.

    Adding the hads as part of the overal score I am not going to be upset about. (Hey I got 4 more brews now to finish beers of Fame! tough task but I am up for the challenge!). your lists I would also think are going to be dynamically changing alot, but should settle once you get a little less rush of data.

    However, maybe you can colappse/separate or just flat out not list the had reviews in the review section details? It's a bit jarring to look at and doesn't flow well. I think you can visually make it look better.

    Edit: it looks like you might be on this already... ONWARD!!
  2. Jason

    Jason Founder (8,121) Aug 23, 1996 Massachusetts
    Staff Subscriber

    Many factors went into this decision and it has been discussed before many of these new sites were even thought about, worrying about so-called competing sites was not and has never been a factor. Swift reactionary changes are usually short lived, I see this more as the site evolving with the industry and its consumers.
    joeseppy, fredmugs and Zach136 like this.
  3. Auror

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

    Fair enough, but the end result is the same. The future of the site is important, and I know you guys put a lot of thought into these changes. Most of my critiques are tweaks as opposed to philosophical disagreements about the direction the site is going.
  4. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Site Editor (6,360) Dec 8, 2007 North Carolina
    Subscriber Beer Trader

    Likewise, it only effected one review for me (Sierra Nevada Torpedo which I had in both can and bottle).
  5. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Site Editor (6,360) Dec 8, 2007 North Carolina
    Subscriber Beer Trader

    When you did a full review it automatically removed the Had - it has worked this way since Hads were introduced and that is not a change.
  6. Etan

    Etan Initiate (0) Jul 11, 2011 Wisconsin

    I won't repeat everything that others have said, but here are two thoughts that seem the most relevant:

    -It seems like Hads scores are generally much higher on average than review scores. I see a lot of newer users giving 5s to dozens of beers they try simply because of lack of experience (and this practice of giving out 5s is explicitly discouraged by you guys). This inflation might be a reason to consider un-integrating the Hads from the score average.

    -I don't think moving the review minimum to 100 words is a good idea.
  7. leedorham

    leedorham Crusader (701) Apr 27, 2006 Washington

    My hypothesis -
    - changes = easier for drunk people to use
    - drunk people click more ads
  8. ThisWangsChung

    ThisWangsChung Poo-Bah (2,723) Oct 15, 2011 Maryland
    Beer Trader

    I can see why you guys did it, but on a personal note, I don't like having to wade through 546 pages just to read a decent review on the beer.

    I'll still hand out detailed reviews, because goddamnit, that's my duty...I think.
    cavedave and averagjoe3 like this.
  9. Hanzo

    Hanzo Initiate (0) Feb 27, 2012 Virginia

    And if they give a beer a five and that is their opinion who are you to say "oh they just don't know any better"? I think some are confusing just what an opinion is.

    (not a personal attack towards you, just commenting on the general vibe from this thread)
  10. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,550) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Subscriber

    Bug fix:
    • Updated pDev fields.
    • Removed High/Low scores. We'll eventually replace them with rating distribution graph.
  11. NickMunford

    NickMunford Savant (978) Oct 2, 2006 Wyoming

    I like the changes. And with the lower character minimum, I'm much more likely to write something and contribute more about the beers that I'm drinking.
    dianimal and Todd like this.
  12. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,550) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Subscriber

    • At this time, to add a beer a user must have 20 full reviews; this was applied a few hours ago.
  13. Treebs

    Treebs Initiate (0) Apr 18, 2011 Illinois

    In terms of the hads, what about having a user have "X" number of hads/ticks/reviews before their scores alter the actual score. This could deter some of the score trolling I know I and several others have concerns about.
    Zach136 and drabmuh like this.
  14. Auror

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

    Definitely this.
  15. Scotchboy

    Scotchboy Meyvn (1,248) Dec 7, 2010 Idaho
    Beer Trader

    I'm sure everyone has an opinion on this. Mine is I hate it :wink: For selfish reasons, of course. I was at 98 or 99/100 on the beers of fame CBS is on the list (totally getable, right? :rolling_eyes: I thought BoF was all about the easy to get, classic, high score beers?) , and the first time I checked the BoF list today I was back down in the 80's. Looks like with the 1500+ reviews tweak, I'm back over 90. But CBS is still there, taunting me. Must be semi-easy to get for some of you since its now got 1500+ reviews & hads...

    But anyway, its just beer, and honestly, I was shooting to get to 100 just so I could tuck it in my belt and stop trying so darn hard. Looks like I'll still do that anyway. Just without all the ticks.
  16. duceswild

    duceswild Meyvn (1,285) Feb 8, 2010 Maryland
    Subscriber Beer Trader

    I don't mind the changes and appreciate the site moving forward to accommodate more users/preferences.

    However, is there anyway to increase the "Had" time limit? Typically I take notes of each beer at a tasting then "Had" them all at once afterwards when I'm back at my computer. After putting in 3 hads under a minute I was hit with the limit.
  17. mjohnson17

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

    now ^THIS is a great idea! Looking forward to seeing this.
  18. kscaldef

    kscaldef Initiate (0) Jun 11, 2010 Oregon
    Beer Trader

    This is potentially a short-term problem as the only choices until now have been a single number Had or a 250 character review. With the 100 character review, we might see some of those 2s turn into short reviews explaining that the beer seemed infected, or that it had too much diacetyl, or that it had a harsh metallic finish, or whatever it was that the reviewer didn't like, but didn't want to spend the time to do a full structured review.
  19. Sarlacc83

    Sarlacc83 Crusader (752) Mar 2, 2008 Oregon
    Beer Trader

    Well, we can pretty much expect the scores of new beers to shoot through the roof as people who have bottles of limited release give it a 4.5 or a 5 based on a .5 oz sip they had of an open bottle.
  20. rondufresne

    rondufresne Aspirant (286) Dec 13, 2011 Pennsylvania

    This seems like an easy hypothesis to test... assuming there's access to the data. Just correlate the "hads" scores with the full review scores. My guess is that they'd be correlated around .85, which would indicate great reliability and would argue FOR combining.

    Of course, I'm making up the number, so I could be completely wrong.
    daviddoughan and zeledonia like this.
  21. kscaldef

    kscaldef Initiate (0) Jun 11, 2010 Oregon
    Beer Trader

    Yeah, but just think how many more beers you and I can hate now :stuck_out_tongue:
    Sarlacc83 likes this.
  22. Sarlacc83

    Sarlacc83 Crusader (752) Mar 2, 2008 Oregon
    Beer Trader

    Also, as an addendum to my previous point:

    This site has already had a problem with ratings inflation and over-rating of beers. Including adds is going to make it worse.

    I will say I like the addition of .25 increments a lot, though. It makes it easier to differentiate scores.
    Etan likes this.
  23. kevanb

    kevanb Poo-Bah (1,734) Apr 4, 2011 Illinois
    Beer Trader

    I think it's one thing to include the "Hads" score in the overall score of the beer, I get it and that's fine, but can we please keep the "Hads" out of the review section? It's now literally impossible to gather any meaningful information about a beer when you see a review, then 30 useless scores that have ZERO context.
    HuskyinPDX and DrewCapzz like this.
  24. yamar68

    yamar68 Initiate (0) Apr 1, 2011 Minnesota

    Alright well that is badass!
    BobZ and Zach136 like this.
  25. thecheapies

    thecheapies Initiate (0) Jan 11, 2009 Pennsylvania

    While these changes will be somewhat difficult to digest at first, I can see a few positives coming out of this. The .25 increment is a great change (I'm crazy enough, and half-tempted to alter previous reviews; the only frustrating part of this update!). Secondly, semi- or hardly- active BAs will finally feel a part of the site and use it more often. Perhaps, I can get my girlfriend to start submitting her scores when she splits bottles with me. I, definitely, value my girlfriend's opinion; however, she's not a reviewer.

    With a 'Had' and 'Reviewed' segregation update (hopefully to come), the scores can honestly reflect the opinions of both along with a total rating. The big problems I still see that arise is the lack of honest question-ability of a 'Had' score. It was a good point brought up; you can't report JohnDoe user because he/she gave Founders KBS a 'Had' rating of '1'. In turn, that IS their opinion, and the debate becomes whether or not they should be allowed to submit it. Even though it's not a problem-solver, it's almost as if we should just discard all user 'Had' ratings of 1 or 5 off-the-bat.

    I was curious and took a look at the top-rated beers for my favorite style - Flanders Red Ale. On top of that list now is Blueberry Flanders from Perennial Artisan Ales out of Missouri. The beer has only one user review and 9 'Had's, giving it the exact necessary rating count of 10 to allow submission and representation in the top beer lists. Here's a beer that will be hard to dethrone; seeing as it was brewed once, tapped, tasted, and 'ticked' by 9 BAs who had nothing positive or negative to contribute about the beer--only that 7 of those 9 BAs gave the brew a 5.0 'Had' rating (the other two, both 4.75 respectively).

    The honest question out of this (out of fairness) is 'Do Beer Advocates think that Blueberry Flanders is a better Flanders Red Ale than Bockor Cuvee Des Jacobins Rouge?' Should Blueberry Flanders top that list, and continue to top that list for quite awhile? How valuable were the 9 'Had' ratings for that beer that bumped it the top spot over a list of countless other delicate, well-crafted, and highly-respected beers?

    Like I said, I like the direction, but there are loose ends to tie up here. Good work so far, Bros!
    Zach136 and davey101 like this.
  26. comfortablynirm

    comfortablynirm Disciple (360) Aug 19, 2008 Pennsylvania

    I guess I need to put more thought into my "hads"...
  27. Jason

    Jason Founder (8,121) Aug 23, 1996 Massachusetts
    Staff Subscriber

  28. thecheapies

    thecheapies Initiate (0) Jan 11, 2009 Pennsylvania

    Wow. I hope Todd and Jason view those profiles. That's exactly what we've all been talking about. You found two. How many more of those kinds of profiles exist?

    Do these two users use the 'Had' rating system as merely a way to track beers they tasted? krispharper gave all 96 of the beers he 'reviewed' exactly a '1' rating.
  29. Jason

    Jason Founder (8,121) Aug 23, 1996 Massachusetts
    Staff Subscriber

    Well aware of a small handful ... reporting directly to us is best.
    thecheapies likes this.
  30. thecheapies

    thecheapies Initiate (0) Jan 11, 2009 Pennsylvania

    I've actually never reported a user before. What is the best way of doing this? When you click on a username and go to their profile page, there is no 'Report' link. It seems there are only 'Report' links attached to a user's posts. I could use those links, although it wouldn't be to report anything particularly abusive about that specific post or thread.
  31. tectactoe

    tectactoe Initiate (0) Mar 20, 2012 Michigan

    Idk, I feel like reviewing scores have more thought (and typically more criticism) involved and tend to be more accurate. Don't get me wrong guys - I know some of you only do "hads" and don't want to write reviews, and therefore you put a lot of thought into your ratings as well, not knocking you at all. I know Hanzo, for example, only uses "hads" and based off of his profile and board activity, his ratings would be true and well thought out. BUT, I personally know people who will have a beer, like it a lot, and just go to BA and give it a 5 (or vice versa for a beer they didn't care for very much) without giving much thought to the rating. I have a feeling there are probably quite a few people like this.

    Also, sure you can review a beer and give it a "1" as a troll, but what's more likely - someone to sit and type up a fake review just to give the beer a 1, or someone who can simply go to each page and pick 1 from a drop down box - and now all of these ratings are getting treating with the same weight (right?). As you can see from a link to one of the profiles I listed above, this guy goes through and rates 96 pretty good beers with a "1" rating, all listed for today's date. Having to write a review to affect the score certain deters much of this behavior.

    Ultimately, it doesn't matter too much because I still think there are more people on this site who care about beer and their ratings enough to provide honest and accurate ones, as opposed to people who just post fake ratings, so it's really not something to argue too much about.
    maximum12 likes this.
  32. DaveAnderson

    DaveAnderson Devotee (479) Jan 11, 2011 Minnesota

    This must have been fixed a few minutes ago. I saw a 100.24% pDev on a Kvass, then returned to find it fixed.
  33. Lutter

    Lutter Initiate (0) Jun 30, 2010 Texas

    Can you please add the option on review pages to "hide reviews with no comments?"

    It's really annoying to have to scroll past like 10 blank reviews to find one with tasting comments.
    Zach136 likes this.
  34. tjensen3618

    tjensen3618 Initiate (0) Mar 23, 2008 California

    All the changes are fine and I'll get used to them.

    One suggestion, when you view a beer, it should show reviews only as the default setting rather than hads and reviews mixed.
    Also, the Beers of Fame list should have a higher minimum now.
  35. RightAJ

    RightAJ Initiate (0) May 17, 2011 Pennsylvania

    This promotes exactly what people are complaining about! This is a review based website, why take out the reviews? If anything, encourage people to take more time and be more serious about what they write, otherwise there's no accountability! Having features that help newbies get involved is great, but don't water down the rest for people who are more serious- i.e. all brewpubs need a gateway beer, but that doesn't mean you need to water down the RIS to cater to those who are new to craft beer.
    morimech and yemenmocha like this.
  36. drabmuh

    drabmuh Initiate (0) Feb 7, 2004 Maryland

    I agree with point #3, Hads do not equal reviews, this would be a fun feature for an app but Hads shouldn't affect the overall score of a beer, ESPECIALLY since the character limit has been dropped so low. I think these changes are generally good but I won't be posted 100 character reviews personally. I would like to see Hads and Reviews separated, hopefully this happens with the launch of the app.
    cosmicevan likes this.
  37. drabmuh

    drabmuh Initiate (0) Feb 7, 2004 Maryland

    This is a great idea. If the # of Hads for a beer was set at 25 or 50 before it affects the score ti would go a long way to prevent a group of homers from bumping a beer up just because they want to troll.
    Thorpe429 likes this.
  38. leedorham

    leedorham Crusader (701) Apr 27, 2006 Washington

    Who defined it as that?

    From the "about" page...

    "BeerAdvocate (BA) is a global, grassroots network, powered by an independent community of beer enthusiasts and industry professionals who are dedicated to supporting and promoting beer."
    ncaudle, Zach136 and NickMunford like this.
  39. drabmuh

    drabmuh Initiate (0) Feb 7, 2004 Maryland

    I agree with this 100%. Beeradvocate's appeal is the thoughtful data and user input, it isn't just a bunch of ticks but reviews that are sometimes funny, often thoughtful, and as an aggregate provide the user with a huge wealth of information about breweries and beers. I fear the dilution of this. I don't mind dropping the limit a little (as long as we can flag stuff again) but giving "Hads" the same weight as reviews doesn't seem right.

    There should be "review of the week" section on here to showcase nice reviews or new beers that people are talking about. I've been on here for almost 10 years and the reviews is what keeps me coming back.
  40. RightAJ

    RightAJ Initiate (0) May 17, 2011 Pennsylvania

    Not that reviews are the entire focus, but the site has gained its recognition and popularity (I would say) mostly from its reviews and rankings.
    yemenmocha 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.