Do you ever which you could give quarter points in BA ratings? The issue for me is that I really only use one point of the 5-point scale for the most part, from 3.5 to 4.5. I'd like to be able to do 3.75 and 4.25 and occasionally 4.75 to distinguish things a bit better. For me, if a 1 is the worst it can get and a 5 is the best it can get, then 3.0 means average, means a beer that is basically generic. There's nothing specifically wrong with it and there's nothing notable about it. Flat. Boring. Level. For me Fat Tire exemplifies average. It's a perfect 3.0. I know people have different opinions so just substitute your own generic beer here. Most craft beers I've tried, by comparison, are really 3.5. They're a notch better than average. They're decent. And there are hundreds and hundreds of them. They don't really stand out in memory but they're decently made beers that don't put you off. Sometimes a beer might have something wrong with it but also good qualities to offset them and you score by feel. Most macros by comparison have something wrong with them to me - some off note, whether it's old taco shells or stale popcorn or wet cardboard or or wet dog or odd chemical something or nonspecific malaise. They dip below 3 in a given category and/or overall because there's something wrong with them. Most are 2.5 or south, but I rarely drink them and almost never bother to rate them. Really bad, offensive beers that have something really wrong with them get 1.x in one or more categories, whether macro or craft. This is pretty rare given that I avoid obvious 1.x candidates and craft rarely turns out that way. Back on the good side, a beer that stands out above the pack, that's really pretty good and notable in a given category or overall, gets a 4 in that category. Stuff that's just fantastic and excellent and great gets a 4.5 in a category or overall. I'm reluctant to award 5s because there's so many revered beers and breweries out there that I haven't tried. To give something a 5 means it can't get better in that category, but that's hard to say without having tried more of the most lauded beers and breweries in order to have that perspective for comparison, so I want to leave room. I've only given a few 5s in mouthfeel I think because there's just no way it could be better than silken velvet sex. So more than half of the scale goes unused for me. And within my range of mostly 3.5 to 4.5 (where I'm guessing most overall BA ratings fall), I'd like some more gradation. Sometimes when I consider a score in a given category for a given beer, it's more than a previous one that got, say 3.5, but less than one that got 4. But I have to pick one, which sort of throws it off. Overall, I think it all averages out, and a rating doesn't define a beer, and so who cares. I'm sure many of you don't care and that's fine. And it's pretty subjective anyway. And there are more important things in life, blah blah blah. But for me, for my own ranking of things for my own later memory and use, I'd like to be able to get more specific to better rank things against one another. What's your rating logic and could you use some finer measurements? PS - Rating to style would be a cure for a lot of what ails ratings, but not everything fits or was designed to fit in a category and I don't feel qualified or experienced enough to rate to style. Seems like an average, unimpressive beer could get a 5 as long as it hit all the supposed style requirements. That seems misleading and isn't helpful for me. So I just rate on how good, interesting, well-made, and impressive something is, knocking off points if needed for things that come across as defects.