Logging old ticks

Accuracy is the goal here. If you can accurately do it from memory, it's OK.

 

Not true. BA does give clear guidelines as to how reviews should be approached:
http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/how-to-review-a-beer.241156/

from that page:

Don't Review from Memory
You don't need to review every single beer that you drink. But if you feel compelled to, take some notes instead of attempting to recall a beer experience from days, weeks, months, or years ago.

 

Much of this just feeds the negative stereotypes of tickers. Go ahead, tick that beer sample from memory from last week, last month, last summer, last year. Hey, it's all about that number of yours.

appreciate @jmdrpi giving the reminder:

BA does give clear guidelines as to how reviews should be approached:
http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/how-to-review-a-beer.241156/

from that page:

Don't Review from Memory
You don't need to review every single beer that you drink. But if you feel compelled to, take some notes instead of attempting to recall a beer experience from days, weeks, months, or years ago.

 

Logging in old beers that I had months ago? No.
Putting in a short review of a beer I had (and gave some thought to) a few nights ago? Sure.
I used to put a lot more thought into my reviews, but then I realized that nobody is actually reading them except for me. People may look up the average score, but the caramel vs. treacle vs. toffee notes you pick up in that barleywine matter only to you. Only exception might be a new product that people are unfamiliar with.
Be fair, honest, and respect the beer. If you really care about the number of semi-anonymous reviews you have on a website, you have bigger issues to deal with.

 

One problem I have noticed is from some people who went to GABF last week. I have seen multiple people who have reviewed about 50+ beers in a day this week saying that they had them at GABF. I don't really have a problem with reviewing roughly a week later, i just think most people's palates are wrecked after having 20+ different pours in a day. Combine that with the time between tasting and review and the fact that many of the pours were probably in a more than slightly inebriated state, and it just doesn't seem like the correct way to go about a review.

 

Depends, do you equate the number of reviews you log with your self worth? If so, backtick. If no, please let your reviews serve a purpose, and be as accurate as possible

 

As much as I'd like to bring my beer "hads" on here more in line with reality, I don't think it's right for me write reviews of beers I haven't had in a decade and don't intend to have again. Rogue Dead Guy from a Halloween party in 2004, Humbolt's Nectar IPA I had while playing Halo 2... I might remember the former as particularly bland and the latter as one of the worst IPAs I've ever had, but without recent context commenting that seems unfair. What if the recipe has changed? What if I had an old bottle and didn't check the date and certainly don't remember it now?

I think context is key in the review portion for rating purposes. I used to drink Guinness in college the way people would drink bud light, but I didn't review and rate it until I had one again a week or so back because it had been a very long time. Just trying to be fair and maintain integrity. What's weird and I don't get is why someone would rate 50+ crappy beers in a single day on here? Do they really need to log a 1 for bud light lime, then a 1 for bud select, then a 1 for bud light etc. to remember they've had them and they weren't good?

However if someone's just going "had, had, had, had..." without rating it I don't see any issue with that.

 

Exactly.