Constantly underrating beer?

I seem to be underrating most beers since the new 0.25 increment system went into place. At first I hated the new system, but now I can't see myself being able to fairly rate beers if it switched back.

 

So what's the standard by which we're judging whether a beer is "over" or "under" rated? Because there seem to be people who are ready to categorically declare that the ratings on BA are too high, but I don't know what the reference point is supposed to be.

I'd hazard a guess that there's an entire group of people out there who only take the effort to review beers that they liked--I know I'm that way. Yes, I'll occasionally review a stinker, but only if I can specifically put into words what made it a stinker for me. And sometimes, I just don't want to bother, on the chance that my bottle was bad/atypical. I think in general, people are able to talk with more detail and nuance about something they like, so even when reading reviews, I tend to give a little more weight to the positive reviews than the negative.

 

I don't review beers, but I read reviews. Most reviewers seem to over rate beer IMO.

 

I seem to remember reading somewhere on BA that the bros had the "average beer" score in the 1-5 marking system as 3.6. (Not that my memory is anything to brag about.)

 

Hmmm... I, for one, never had a problem slamming any beer, craft, crafty or otherwise. Don't think this really applies. It's crowded at the top, that's for sure. That means that beers that are well made are not easily distinguishable on the BA scale while they may well be quite easily ordered hierarchically in real life. Think of SAT or GRE scores--once you get into 95 percentile, the increments get really small and you can get an extra 10 points for moving up less than 1/2 a percentile. That's because there is an assumption of quasi-normal distribution and the further you move away from the mean the smaller the number of people who get higher scores (an assumption that is mostly true). On BA, there is no normal or quasi-normal assumption. The ratings are essentially absolute and personally interpretable. Same with Zagats and similar self-reporting rating sites. The problem is, there is no randomization mechanism, not that there is over/under-rating. So if you assume a bell curve to begin with, what you actually get is bimodal, with a bump somewhere near a presumed average (3?) and another huge one at the high end--because people don't like drinking crappy beer and like drinking better beer. If they were comparing beers on an absolute scale, that might result in a normal distribution. But they are only comparing their own experiences, so they think something is absolutely great--and do so in large numbers--where a more experienced observer would give a lower score.

 

I think, frankly, that a lot of people wait around to see how their friends think about a beer and decide whether to like it or not - and how much - based on group-think. I KNOW it happens with people I know around here and I suspect, from some of the comments here, that some people won't give a beer a high rating if it's not rated highly by others. I only rate beers I really like, so mine are all high. Life is too short, I think, to waste it on mediocrity.

 

You don't need to guess, you are entirely correct. The proof is in the amount of reviews a "poor" beer gets as compared to a "world class" beer. For instance, the total number of reviews of Pliny the Elder at more than 7000 reviews as compared to Budweiser with about 3000. The only conclusion that can be made by that is that at least 4000 Pliny reviewers either never had a Budweiser (Not even remotely believable) or they choose not to review a beer they don't care for (Bingo) Now, extrapolate that across the entire spectrum and there you have it. The scores "seem" inflated, but in reality they are not. The scores just reflect this very real phenomenon of a natural human tendancy

 

You also need to factor in that people tend to buy beers that they expect to like. If I don't like IPA and would rate it low in a review, chances are I will not buy it even if it is highly recommended. That's what I've always considered a failing on Zagats--there is no objectivity in restaurant reviews. Even great beers get an occasional bad review by people who don't appreciate a particular flavor profile, but they are usually so overwhelmed by fans that the outliers don't matter.

 

Regardless, we should be ranking against other beers on the market. Thats ultimately what this whole site is centered around, comparing beers against each other.

My point is that most of us couldn't be bothered reviewing every beer we drink, I am certainly guilty of this. Most of us rate beers particularly when they are something special to us, whether it be local or just something we particularly are floored by. As such, most reviews will biased leaning towards higher scores. Thats why when looking at reviews, I sort by top reviewers and see what they think; they usually are the ones that rate all the beers they try.

 

I don't think it's that far out. I've had almost 500 in 2 years and a buddy of mine is at 700 in the same amount of time. Though I try to order a new beer every time I go to a beer bar.

 

for what it's worth, i underrated beers at first because i didn't have a real good lock on how BAs use the rating system ... as in at first, i thought 2.5 was OK, but 2.5 is terrible ... in fact, 3.25 isn't really "average" ... the true BA average is probably somewhere in the mid-3s.

others can debate that.

now i tend to under AND overrate beers relatively equally. either way, i don't sweat it. my ratings and reviews are nothing more or less than a very personal, subjective datebase for me, and i try to be very open and honest in my reviews so that anybody taking the time and trouble to read it will know where i'm coming from -- e.g., i hate licorice and raisins, so i think belgian strong darks suck. obviously, they don't ... they get ratings out the wazhoo, and a great many people love them. that's cool by me, but personally, i'd rather drink water, so I say as much in my review so as not to confuse anybody.

 

What are you rating against? For instance, you rated Great Lakes Dortmunder Gold a 3.71/5.00... what other examples of the style have you had to rate this one a 3.71? Have you had a world class example of this style to 'calibrate' your ratings against?

One could argue all of our ratings, without knowledge of what the best and worst of a style are, are meaningless. I'm not immune to this. If you want to critically reflect on your ratings then I would say it's too premature to actually do so.

 

You do realize a 2.5 score on here would rate as poor. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't define the average beer as poor by any means, much less craft brews.

 

Yeah but a 4 is "outstanding" and a lot of average beers score that.

 

Really? Where is that average to be found? How is it determined they are "average" beers?

 

My personal opinion is that the majority of the folks on BA are huge hops and IPA gents and ladies. I myself am not a fan of the ipa/huge hops, so when I review my ratings agains those on the board, I think the difference lies in the fact that i'm raiting most hoppy beers as SH*T and they are rating most of the beers I rate higher the same....

that said, i've been told to keep trying ipa/hop infused beer, but still can't get behind it.

 

They keep changing that, though, and I believe that 'Outstanding' is a very recent change. It used to mean 'Good', yet the old scores remain the same, numerically.

 

A 1,000 new beers in 1 year let alone 2-3 is pretty easy to do...(no not full pours)

Tickers gotta tick

 

I'm at 665 reviews since my first on December 27th, 2011. That's 665 in 609 days, and I've slowed down considerably over the last few months.

 

Well, a reviewer's idea of average should be somewhere in the middle, between the worst beer and the best beer they've had.