Do you review to style?

I take style into consideration but there are other factors that go into my rating including personal preference.

I reject the idea that every beer style has a 5.0 beer. I also reject the idea that we are beer judges - we are beer lovers who rate according to our personal preferences. This is not a competition where medals are being awarded for each style.

 

So do you just not give bad reviews? Or do you only not give bad reviews to beers you know will be bad? What if you drink a well-rated beer that you hope will be good and then hate it? Turns out, that beer just ain't your style. So are you now ethically unable to rate that beer because it turned out to be a beer you didn't like after all? What if I just drank a pilsner that was the best pilsner I've ever had, when I normally don't dig the style ? Should I not review it because I usually don't like pilsners and therefore have disqualified myself from having a "helpful or constructive" opinion on them? Does the same go for a style that I like too much more than most other people?

I'm not trying to start a personal argument here, I'm just trying to understand how others' viewpoints work. I only review for fun, but also for practice in honing my beer knowledge, and also as a record of what I liked. But as I said before, I don't think anyone is totally objective in matters of taste, so denying yourself a review because you think you're too subjective is a very...subjective way of looking at it.

 

in dog show arena's they rate against others of the same, then rate against all for their favorite, I do the same with beer

 

I'm sure my own personal flavor preferences influence my ratings, but I do try to also rate to style...

 

For me it's a combination of the two. I try to rate to style but I can't help to mark up or down a beer depending on how much I like the style. Stouts and porters get lower ratings from me while IPAs, witbiers and Belgians get higher scores overall.

 

Sometimes to style, but often it is just how much I enjoy the beer, especially if it's a new style or one I've not sampled a variety of. I'm not a fan of pumpkin beers, so even if it's good to the style, I'm not really enjoying it, so it will get a lower rating.

 

I'll try to avoid the personal argument tack as well - hopefully, I manage to!

I've given bad reviews, almost universally for wandering outside style - and in a couple of cases, to beers I enjoyed and have had again, simply because they were so far outside the usual for the style. Aecht Schlenkerla Eiche is one of those situations - that brewery only makes rauchbiers, appends other style names to differentiate their rauchbiers (marzen, helles, and so forth), and their Eiche doppelbock is the only beer they have on here that's not listed as a rauchbier - it's listed as a doppelbock. I love that beer, and I've had it on quite a few occasions, but if I'm in a doppelbock mood, I'm not reaching for something that involves notes of smoked meat.

As for trying new beers in styles I know I don't like - I've stopped doing that, due to enjoyment. I can spend that time and money trying things I can expect to enjoy, as opposed to continuing to beat my head into the wall of things I know I don't like after over a decade of drinking craft. With new styles, I prefer not to review beers until I've had several different ones, and have begun to form an idea of what to expect.

Are my reviews 100% objective? Likely not, because reviewing involves personal taste, and is inherently going to contain some degree of subjectivity. I can say that my personal top ten beers on here involve 9 styles, including Vienna lager, witbier, and hefeweizen, so I like to believe I may be a little more objective than someone who has only one or two styles in their top ten.

 

That's the BA description for AAL's. It's accurate but biased.

I rate Budweiser very low. It's shitty, mass-produced piss with clever marketing, and just a name that sells.
It's like $7 for a 6pk in Maine.

On the other hand, just recently I discovered 24 oz cans of Gennessee cream ale for 99 cents. It's very tasty within the style. When I review the cream ale, I review in a scale with the AAL's. Obviously I'm not gonna review it against a good IPA. It got a good score because it is tastier than most AAL's and also cheaper. In the context of AAL's it gets like a 4.5.

 

I personally rate to style, but if the taste flatters the taste buds, my opinion is easily swayed.

 

I review on style but take into consideration my own personal thoughts as well as what the brewer was trying to do if they do something like barrel age in Tequila. If I had to put in a ration I would say: 70 to style:30 to subjective intent. I think some beer that come out can't really be pigeonholed to style because of the different things done to them that would make it a crappy interpretation of the style but a fantastic beer on its own.

 

I should have been a bit more clear. It's not a bad thing to admit that you're not a fan of a particular style. I was referring to those that state they know they dislike the style and rate it extremely low without any real substance in their review.

 

Somewhat. Taste is hard to take out of the equation.

 

I think the style guides are helpful especially when you are just setting out on your beer journey but I find most truly amazing beer transcends style and just becomes "really good". Examples from my preferences, BCBS, Heady Topper, HF Anna, Sip of Sunshine, Fou' Founne, DDC Solstice D'ete and Moralite, Four Winds Nectarous and Maine Lunch. These are all beers that go beyond style and fully into something else that I can only explain as just "fucking good".

 

I try my best to rate to style, especially in styles that I have had a lot of. Sometimes my overall score will be influenced slightly as a comparison to all other beers.

 

Definitely try to but don't always succeed.

 

I rate to taste and preferences with style falling somewhat after those since I find the first two more important to me. Exceptions do occur when a beer totally misses its mark on what it's advertised as though.

The most important part of a review, in my opinion, is explaining the beer and why it got the rating it did. I find that much more useful than an arbitrary number of stars or statistics. Individual tastes can vary so much and a flavor profile others may really like, I personally may not.

 

I don't rate beers on a web site or anything like that. While drinking a beer I've never had before say its a porter I kinda go over it in my had and compare it to other porters I've had.

 

Maybe Avg could have a "style adjustment" component? Depending on how it was set up, a beer like Westvleteren 8 might jump to the #1 spot in the Top 250 rankings because it is FAR and away the highest-rated dubbel on the site. That is, there's a far bigger gap between Westy 8 and the next-highest-rated dubbel than there is between the two highest-rated DIPA's or imperial stouts. Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier (one of my personal favorite beers) would get a nice boost, as well.

 

My Untappd reviews are MY opinion of the beer. What I taste, what I think of it and will I get it again. I am not getting paid to review for BJCP "style"

I might say, Pretty good for a Bock, but not my thing" - If someone notices that the way they rate beer is close to mine, they may see value in it; but if they rate a lot of beers with a 5, they are probably not going to bother with my comments.