Do you review infected beers?

Wasn't this discussed extensively recently? I think in the BA yeti thread.

 

Discussed extensively on the BA Yeti thread. I said that people shouldn't review infected beers, but was rebuked and changed my mind. If the brewer puts out a product, it puts it out for review. I still think that if they announce an infection and offer refunds it would be nice to refrain from reviewing the infected beer, but not all breweries do this, and ones who don't especially deserve bad reviews for infected beers they put out.

And of course this works for infection because it's a QC issue (brewer's responsibility). Staleness, light-struck, etc... are distributor/retailer/consumer problems, and I don't think beers with these problems should be reviewed.

 

If brewery accepts and recalls/refunds, no.

If no one seems to care, hell yeah.

Besides, reviews of infected beers are also helpful in spreading awareness (or rumors?) and finding out if there's a trend.

 

Generally no, if it's not what the brewery was intending why review it? They didn't intend to put out a shit beer. These threads are more useful than slamming it in a review where really who cares? Threads about infections are far more useful and wide reaching to help BA guys avoid bad trades or bad buys.

 

I don't buy that argument. I hope no one strives to brew a shit beer; and yet there are a lot of shitty beers. Proper sanitation is an integral part of brewing; it matters just as much as the recipe/skill/whatever. Therefore, it should figure in a beer's ratings.

 

If the beer is listed by vintage then yes if it isn't (which is often the case) I'm torn.

 

Real-world analogy: I do a crappy job on a project for work, despite my best intentions. Should I expect people to just give me a pass because the outcome didn't align with my intentions? Breweries are businesses that sell a product in exchange for money; why should they be held to a lower standard, where only their successes are worthy of attention?

All of that said, I'll indicate in my review if I know that a brewery acknowledged an infection and/or offered refunds etc., kind of like a preemptive "shit happens" disclaimer in the review. Nobody's perfect. But for the simple reason (stated already) that other people read reviews to decide whether to buy a given beer, reviews of infected beers provide potentially useful information to the rest of us.

 

is your money and your beer and your review I do not care what you do...you should mention you think its infected and why though but that is just me.

 

A thread isn't necessarily more useful. Many users don't look at the forums, only beer entries. And even users who do look at the forums can miss a thread.

No brewer intends to put out a shitty product. But if it happens and you don't take responsibility for it, the beer deserves to be reviewed badly.

 

Accidents happens and it costs the brewery a lot of money, even the best laid plans can be undone, doesn't mean they're lazy or careless. If there's a trend to a brewery, then yes, which is why I stated Generally as the preface.

 

Um, if they don't taste the beer to make sure it's not crap before they put it on shelves, that's lazy or careless. If they taste it and still put it on the shelves, that's even worse.

 

Each beer should be reviewed in a fair manner, based on its own merits. If that means a beer is infected it should be reviewed as such. Beer should not be reviewed based on external factors beyond the brewers control, ie storage, skunking or fading. The review should give insight into the experience and paint an accurate picture of the beer. Even if the beer is recalled or refunds or replacements are offered, the product was on the market and it is open to any critical and fair critique. I will say however that if you were to obtain an uninfected version the review should be updated to include and reflect the beer as it was intended to be enjoyed.

 

My sentiments exactly. I'd love to find out how you'd feel about this beer.
Ugh. Just got a chill thinking about it again...

 

I would review it, but in order to do that...I'd have to drink it

 

I have tons of respect for the breweries that admit/refund their infection problems. That being said I still review them for the sake of the community. I want others who are contemplating purchasing/trading for a certain beer to know exactly what they are getting. Or rather what they have a chance of getting. I don't review infected beers to bash the breweries that make them, I review them to protect our community

 

Which is what makes the (hopefully temporary) lack of beer karma points all the more galling.

 

Absolutely. Keep in mind some infections are not tasted until a month or more after bottling/kegging. Proper testing, and expertise in using it would show these un-tasteable infections. Reviews of infected beer show the educated consumer that these breweries don't have infection testing equipment and/or expertise.