Even wondered whether you systematically under or over rate compared to the average?

Being a lover of pilsner types, I very well may be a bit too generous when reviewing that style.
I rarely encounter just a shiddy pils!

 

I use the BA ratings as a base, but once I rate a beer I only use my ratings(since they are my taste buds) to determine if I will drink that beer again or not. Obviously if you are not a fan of a particular style you won't rate that beer very high but isn't that the point since its your rating? I would imagine the number of people rating the styles they don't like or drink much of a particular for doesn't skew the overall data enough to make a difference.

 

I am a tough judge, which makes me tend to underrate compared to the average reviewer. However, I am consistently tough on how I rate beers, and I believe consistency is the most important thing for any reviewer to be (whether s/he tends to over- or underrate).

 

I disagree (respectfully of course) in part. I don't believe that a 5/100/perfect score reflects it being the "best" beer in that style and no other could be better. I do agree that it implies that nothing could be improved on. I have only rated 2 of almost 400 beers a 5. Black Note and Bourbon County Barleywine. To me (important part there, not fact) there is nothing that I would change about either one if I had a magic wand. I find the amount of bourbon flavor is perfect, not too sweet, not too boozy, not too heavy,etc... Just my take on them. However, I don't believe that there are not other examples in the respective styles that may be just as good. Some are very similar (Sucaba). Some a little different, but no real flaws.

I can see what you are saying though. I try to rate to style, and how good of a representation I feel it is (based on what I know). Going by that, it would seem that if you had a 5, then any other beer in that style would have to taste exactly the same to also be a 5. Which I don't do. Interesting.

All of this long winded response to get to this: I tend to be within about 6% a majority of the time. I, like a lot of us, am probably (not probably) guilty of rating our favorite styles higher (see barrel aged dominating the list), and harder on the ones we don't care for. I know that my scores for most macros are 30-50% off. I should go back and rate most of the AALs again more true to the style vs. how much I dislike them. For example, although I can't stand to drink light american lagers, something like a Miller Lite should probably be much higher than a 53 (and the 2 rated it at), but it is being rated based on it's position amongst "good beer" instead of the style. Not much competition there- http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/style/39/ I should probably put this much time and thought into my finances...

 

Very interesting thread.

I like to think I am consistent, but I'm sure my reviews have changed over time. The more beers I drink, my perspective changes - which makes sense - and I'm sure I can be more critical than I used to be.

Although I have not had a perfect beer, thus never given a beer a 5.0. But I have not had Proprietors - YET.

 

I think I under rate. I've never given anything a 5 (but I think everything could be improved one way or another) and I think I only have rated 3-4 beer 4.75, and I have a lot of favorites and go to's.

 

This is the correct answer and it can be easily proven that a majority of BA reviewers/raters feel the same way. Simply compare the amount of reviews of Pliny the Elder to that of the amount of reviews for say, Budweiser. What you will see is that there are roughly twice as many reviews for Pliny as for Bud.
Inescapable conclusion is that most people only bother to review beers they like, just like you (and me)

 

Overall, I am a bit on the generous side.
Not all that badly as a matter of mean or median.
There are a few I was way off high on and some that I was rather low on

 

If I had to guess, I'd say I underrate by about 3652624572894626346438926.4 overall

 

I'm one of these guys that isn't afraid to give a beer a 5 - if I can't think of any way it could be improved upon, then why not? So there are other beers out there that are better, big deal - there always will be, and there can't be only one beer in existence that deserves the almighty 5, right? That being said, I always feel remorseful and sad when I rate a whale or similarly highly regarded brew well below the average.

 

If I understand you correctly, it could also mean that you underrate beers very slightly and you've rated 321 of them ... if different people want to compare numbers then it should be divided by your beers.

This seems like a good measure too, mine is Saison Dupont at -4.5%.

 

I just checked my median rDev and currently it's exactly 0. Exactly the same amount of beers rated higher than average as lower.

 

Pretty consistently underrate the beers I've rated. In some cases, it's a case of trying a style that's not a favorite. And in other cases, it's disappointment @ too-high expectations.

And then there re the rare occasions where I just wonder what some people are smoking....

 

I constantly overrate because I just love drinking beer! Even the so-so beers are always a bump above an Okay rating. I haven't found anything absolutely repulsive yet, just styles that I don't prefer.


"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

-AE

 

I've been tracking this for some time now. I have a spreadsheet where I can track scores relative to the BA average by both beer and by style. Now, the information by style is just based off the beers I've rated, but once the sample size is large enough it becomes interesting. For instance, my average rDev is -3.56%. But of the 66 IPAs I've reviewed, my rDev is only -2.33% so while I typically rate below the average, for IPAs, a style that I love, I'm a bit closer to the average reviewer.

Edit: For what it's worth my average score across 578 reviews is a 4.00, but that is because I spent a substantial amount of time trying to review the old BA Top 100 and Beers of Fame, which generally have better reviews that others, I'm sure this score will trend down over time now that my main focus is writing reviews for pretty much any beer I have the time to sit down with an properly analyze.

 

Looking at my ratings, I appear to have a bit of sand in my growler....

 

I believe I rate lower than average.

 

When reviewing, I know there's quite a few here that try to be as honest as possible. Sometimes I look at my rDev and see that some are about the same as others, while some vary wildly.

Would you say that a personal rDev is indicative of ANYTHING, whether positive if in-line with others, or negative if out of line? Or is it just a matter of personal preference and who really cares?

 

No...it's all based on taste. You drink Pepsi...I drink Coke. I like sushi...you hate raw fish. I drive a Ford...you drive a Chevy...Levis, Wrangler or Lee...so on and so forth.

Taste is personal with flavor just as it is with all of our belongings...humans aren't programmed robots, life is short, enjoy what you like and find a few friends to enjoy the ride with, tilt and share a glass...cheers!

 

I worry about it alot. Who wants to be labeled a deviant?