Do you ever wish you had the option of more rating precision here?

I know what you mean. 1-10 scale still seems simple enough with plenty of fine tune to boot. That's just my $0.02.

 

People give 1's? I can't get behind that. Unless its purely a blind taste test and they truly were the world's worst beers.
I won't subject my palette to that kind of cruelty.

 

OP - I think you make excellent points in a well-thought-out, intelligently written post. I hope the brothers take your points to heart. I often find myself wishing for finer gradations in the rating system, for similar (if not identical) reasons. So much so, in fact, that if the site gave me the ability to save my written tasting notes and an overall score without entering ratings for the 5 score sections I would likely do so.

@ DelMontiac - A 1-10 scoring system would only be an increase of one potential rating level from the current 1.0 - 5.0 system. I'm assuming that your hypothetical system would be integer-only. If not, then it would be an improvement.

 

Serious? Put on your big boy pants and use the whole range. Using a 1.0 range is your entire problem. Stop thinking you are going to make the bottle cry, that's just condensation. Before you even take a sip of the beer set each drop down bar to 3.0, and then decide +/- from there, and don't be a nancy, say it like a man with authority, a lot of beers suck, and that's fine, even a lot of craft beer sucks, i've even had "White Whales" that have sucked, and that is ok.

Love,
Chad

PS. when you review a beer and say "There is a gross and distracting taste component in there that I can't shake......tastes like cat pee" don't give that beer a 2.9, it deserves much worse.

 

People should experience the worst of craft beer before they start reviewing and then go from there.

 

How do you know its the worst until you try it? Go by user reviews first. Validate/calibrate then move on?
I don't write reviews but I do rate.

 

No, not just integers or whole numbers. Like scoring divers in the Olympics. Maybe the biggest problem is that most people are new to the game when they start reviewing beers and aren't sure what an "average" beer is. I'm sure everyone's reference points are different. Experience brings a developed palate and heightened expectations. I'm pretty sure a beer I perceived as "average" today would have seemed "good" to me 10 years ago. On the other hand, the scoring system used here is simple for a reason. Us OCD-ers just like lots of numbers to choose from.

 

All 1 scores? Sam Adams Triple Bock. 1997 vintage.

 

You obviously never had the "opportunity" to try Stone Crime.

And to me, 1/2 points are accurate enough. There's always a matter of subjectivity, and really .5 of a point isn't that big of a deal. People take point ratings way too seriously sometimes.

 

I'm too busy trying to ensure consistency is maintained to worry about precision.

 

I have been thinking the same thing recently. I'd like to be able to differentiate more between two beers that I have given a 3.5. Perhaps a 1-10 scale with the smaller numbers in between would be a little more effective. Just my opinion, and of course my preference. Some people care, some don't, but I think the option should be there.

 

I always thought 1/4 points at minimum would be a great idea on BA. They have 1/4 points for "Had's", but not reviews... I don't get it. If I take the time to taste and review a brew, I'd just like more options. I understand that no one that reads a review is really gonna care about my .02... but I do. I wouldn't think that It would be that big of a deal to make it happen.

 

Why don't we just have a write in portion instead of a drop down menu with preset options? Maybe some people want to review their beers in thumbs ups?

 

I care

 

You've clearly never had Cave Creek Chile Beer.

(I just checked, I actually gave it a 1.5...ugh.)

Dope

 

If you use the rating system to decide whether to try something new, as I do, simply use the 1 -100 average at the top of the reviewing page. It gives you the average of everybody's review and what is usually the most subjective review by the bros. What's the problem with that? After you have a few, you're going to make up your own mind whether you want to buy the beer again so who gives a rat's ass about how others rated or how the system is set up.

 

There are quite a few beers I've had where the taste wasn't quite good enough for a 4, but was slightly better than a lot of the beers I've rated at 3.5. Same with 4 vs 4.5. Quarter increments would've made for a much more accurate score from me in those cases, instead of having to compromise the integrity of my review.

I'm all in favor for quarter increments.

 

I'd rather give a beer a letter grade than a number. Before I joined this site that's how I personally rated beers, and I felt like that gave me a clearer opinion of what I thought of a beer because I can attach more meaning to it. The number system is too subjective to every individual's personal interpretation of what they think a number means because it's unclear. For example, even though a 3 is average I find myself having a hard time giving a beer a 3 because it sounds bad. Therefore, I tend to rate too many beers close to 4 which skews my own personal rating system because I know for a fact I'd prefer one beer to another, even though I rated them the same or really close. There are even beers I've rated lower that I like more than ones I've rated higher. Looking at the beers I've had it has become a clusterfuck around that 4 rating.