Normative Guidelines for Collaboration Beer Names Are Needed

Discussion in 'BeerAdvocate Talk' started by woodychandler, Jul 19, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. woodychandler

    woodychandler Poo-Bah (11,248) Apr 9, 2004 Pennsylvania
    Society Trader

    During a recent brewery horizontal of Against the Grain (AtG), several of their beers turned out to be collaborations. This is all well & good, but the problem (?) arises when there is no set standard for formatting the names of these beers. What ends up happening is that without uniform naming guidelines and the default sort guidelines of the site, it becomes problematic to find these beers as they do not show up (strictly) alphabetically. Phew!

    I am not going to bother with examples as they are rampant, but I would like to give an example of my proposed format for collaboration beers:

    Primary Brewer / Secondary Brewer / Tertiary Brewer - Beer Name

    Please note the spaces between the diacritical marks. At first, I was against them, but in retrospect, a) they make the delineation clearer between brewers, b) this seems to be the consensus format, based on many users' entries & c) it allows one to see where the breweries' names end and the beer name begins.

    An example: Stillwater / Sleeping Giant - Collaborations Are For Lovers
    and another: Against the Grain / Freigeist - Gegen Den Strom Knupp

    I know that this may come across as pretty anal, but as an early-database US Navy Storekeeper, when you do not have standardization within the database, you lose the ability to see all entries equally. It may seem invisible to you as an enduser, but those spaces and diacritical marks are essential when sorting in alpha order as this site does. Without them, it skews the sort and may render a beer "invisible", leading to the addition of a duplicate listing simply because the sort put the entry lower on the page.

    Jeez, I know that this sounds like the rant of a Data Programming Specialist (DP), which I initially thought of becoming, but it is simply attention to detail. The old adage, "The Devil is in the details" applies.

    I will be VERY interested to hear of others' thoughts.
     
  2. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Poo-Bah (9,109) Dec 8, 2007 North Carolina
    Moderator Society Trader

    Woody,

    Primary Brewer / Secondary Brewer / Tertiary Brewer - Beer Name


    This is exactly the format that we have been using - the Site Editors fix the name when it is reported or when we come across one that is formatted incorrectly but please keep reporting them if you see them incorrectly.

    Cheers!
    David
    Site Editor
     
  3. woodychandler

    woodychandler Poo-Bah (11,248) Apr 9, 2004 Pennsylvania
    Society Trader

    That may be the case, but it needs to be widely publicized or else you run the risk of having to correct others' ignorance.
     
  4. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Poo-Bah (9,109) Dec 8, 2007 North Carolina
    Moderator Society Trader

    Sentence style capitalization is well known yet I correct numerous of those daily... As is the style differentiation for things like single and double/imperial IPAs or Stouts but again those are fairly common errors.

    @Todd Can we get How to Add Beers updated with the guidelines for collaborations?
     
  5. Todd

    Todd Founder (6,120) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Moderator Fest Crew Society

    It's something we've discussed, but we're going to wait to add guidelines. @Mike and I need to create a better way to handle/display them first.
     
    woodychandler likes this.
  6. DVMin98

    DVMin98 Poo-Bah (3,333) Nov 1, 2010 North Carolina
    Moderator Society Trader

    Woody, we are at the whim of the people that create the beers. Most are created without a second brewery and we have no clue its a collaboration until we're told it is. And to be honest, most people arent gonna read any guidelines, but will be good to have. I spend more time correcting spelling and grammar than anything else.
     
    woodychandler and beertunes like this.
  7. macrosmatic

    macrosmatic Poo-Bah (2,885) Mar 9, 2006 Florida
    Society Trader

    Feel free to ignore this suggestion, especially if (as @dbrauneis suggests) there's already a BA Standard that is already being applied. But anyway...

    For my own spreadsheet, I enter collaboration beer names as
    Beer Name (with Secondary Brewer, Tertiary Brewer)

    Two main advantages:
    1) No duplication of information
    2) Easier to find beers alphabetically

    1. This naming standard adheres to the otherwise-standard practice on BeerAdvocate of NOT entering the brewery's name as part of the beer name. It becomes duplicate information at that point. And duplication that becomes hindering in cases of long beer names, causing portion of the beer name to be dropped. Example:
    https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/22150/223702/

    2. When viewing an alphabetic list, there would only be ONE place to look for the beer's name.
    2a. This is especially important if the viewer is unaware that the beer in question is a collaboration (or who the collaboration is with), potentially leading to duplicate entries.
    2b. Also important when a beer - that IS a collaboration - is not entered as such. Again, the listing would not be in the expected location. Example (that is an Omnipollo collab):
    https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/32409/271681/

    While I feel like this would be better, I don't know if it's worth changing all entries from the current standard. But I thought I'd put it out there. Cheers!

    ps - Woody, I enjoy reading your reviews immensely. Keep it up!
     
    LiquidAmber and woodychandler like this.
  8. VoodooBear

    VoodooBear Crusader (796) Aug 25, 2012 Puerto Rico
    Trader

    I know this thread's over a year old, but I didn't find anything newer.

    I recently added a couple of beers that were collaborations between a brewery and local artists, I used that exact format but they were all edited to just the beer name later.

    Did we move away from the "[Brewery] / [Collaborator] - [Beer Name]" format at some point? Or was it just because the collab. is between a brewer and a non-brewer that it was removed?

    Just want some clarification in case I've been adding stuff wrong all this time.
     
    woodychandler likes this.
  9. Todd

    Todd Founder (6,120) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Moderator Fest Crew Society

    Yes. Trying to stuff every collaborator's name into the beer's name and before the actual name of the beer is something that we'll be addressing soon. Basically, it needs to stop. That info can go into the notes.

    More to follow...
     
  10. LiquidAmber

    LiquidAmber Poo-Bah (7,145) Feb 20, 2009 Washington
    Society

    I'm super glad this will be addressed. I vote for the parenthetical style ie: "Whatever Stout (collaboration with Generic Brewing)".
    I like having the collaboration on the name line because it is often very clearly stated on the label, but the concatenated brewery names get out of hand and do seem to be likely to produce duplicate listings.
     
    rgordon and woodychandler like this.
  11. Snowcrash000

    Snowcrash000 Poo-Bah (3,009) Oct 4, 2017 Germany
    Moderator Society Trader

    This would be completely counterproductive to what is supposed to be achieved here though, as this would actually make the beer names longer, not shorter.

    I would actually suggest adding a new field for collaboration breweries right under the main brewery field, kinda like it is on untappd.
     
    beertunes and woodychandler like this.
  12. woodychandler

    woodychandler Poo-Bah (11,248) Apr 9, 2004 Pennsylvania
    Society Trader

    I seCANd this idea!
     
    beertunes likes this.
  13. DVMin98

    DVMin98 Poo-Bah (3,333) Nov 1, 2010 North Carolina
    Moderator Society Trader

    I've already begun changing beer names, eliminating collaborating breweries and putting them in the notes.

    I'm gonna need to quit my job to get through Evil Twin, but whatever it takes! :stuck_out_tongue:
     
  14. DVMin98

    DVMin98 Poo-Bah (3,333) Nov 1, 2010 North Carolina
    Moderator Society Trader

    I also recommend not sending us change requests on this just yet. Give us a few months to burn through most stuff, otherwise the queue will be ridiculous
     
    bluejacket74 likes this.
  15. ecpho

    ecpho Aspirant (256) Mar 28, 2011 New York

    How about we just stop drinking collab beers? The are never better than either brewery's regular beer and it's probably just another NEIPA anyway.
     
  16. Snowcrash000

    Snowcrash000 Poo-Bah (3,009) Oct 4, 2017 Germany
    Moderator Society Trader

    So we are already at the stage where we do not put collaboration breweries into the beer name anymore and should ignore such reports?
     
  17. DVMin98

    DVMin98 Poo-Bah (3,333) Nov 1, 2010 North Carolina
    Moderator Society Trader

    Yeah, I'd assume so. Todd was talking about it on Telegram, so I'd just add "Collaboration with Joe Blow Brewing" in the notes and not add it to the name.
     
  18. woodychandler

    woodychandler Poo-Bah (11,248) Apr 9, 2004 Pennsylvania
    Society Trader

    Sehr gut, but let's await the final say from on high. @Todd ? You DO know what happens when you assume, right?
     
  19. socon67

    socon67 Poo-Bah (2,289) Jun 18, 2010 New York
    Society

    I like just adding the collaboration brewers in the notes. Less data points are better, unless we intend to make that feature searchable. And if that's the case, those searches for Mikkeller or Stillwater collabs might break the search engine....
     
    mikeinportc likes this.
  20. rgordon

    rgordon Meyvn (1,065) Apr 26, 2012 North Carolina

    Damn, concatenate is a really good word. I mean it.
     
    beertunes and mikeinportc like this.
  21. LiquidAmber

    LiquidAmber Poo-Bah (7,145) Feb 20, 2009 Washington
    Society

    Coming from a background that included some data entry and database design, that would seem to be the ideal solution, but I've always felt that adding fields here was not on the table. From a database point of view, that would make them searchable too, which would be more awkward in a notes field.
     
  22. VoodooBear

    VoodooBear Crusader (796) Aug 25, 2012 Puerto Rico
    Trader

    Copy that. Thanks!
     
  23. jmdrpi

    jmdrpi Poo-Bah (6,881) Dec 11, 2008 Pennsylvania
    Society

    Is there somewhere in the Help that defines how currently collaboration beers should be named when adding to the database? Is it still being left out of the name and only in the notes?
     
  24. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Poo-Bah (9,109) Dec 8, 2007 North Carolina
    Moderator Society Trader

    The name of the beer is the name of the beer. Collaborating breweries are listed in the notes.
     
    PapaGoose03, jmdrpi and FBarber like this.
  25. cjgiant

    cjgiant Poo-Bah (5,223) Jul 13, 2013 District of Columbia
    Society

    And ideally, for data purposes, there is a main brewer "with collaborators" though we know some collaborations are much more equal and end up with two entries: Brewery A (in collab w/Brewery B) and Brewery B (in collab w/Brewery A). Especially given the usually limited life of these beers, it'd be nice to be able to combine or at least link the separate entries.

    That said, it's not that big an issue, volume-wise - just a minor annoyance I felt like commenting on :slight_smile:
     
    Harrison8 likes this.
  26. beertunes

    beertunes Poo-Bah (7,361) Sep 24, 2007 Kiribati
    Society Trader

    Well, for tax purposes, the beer is credited to the brewery where it was made. That seems a good guideline here as well.
     
    Bitterbill, Harrison8 and dbrauneis like this.
  27. cjgiant

    cjgiant Poo-Bah (5,223) Jul 13, 2013 District of Columbia
    Society

    Sounds good, though taproom beers where it’s made/served in both locations could either not clear things up or not be readily available to the BA adding the beer. They’ll add it where they’re having it, most likely. I’ve actually requested a merge of such before without any visible change occurring - although I don’t think I requested an internal link in the notes.
     
  28. beertunes

    beertunes Poo-Bah (7,361) Sep 24, 2007 Kiribati
    Society Trader

    A beer is only made in one place. It is that breweries beer. If it is served at the other brewery, it should be listed as a guest tap. People are gonna people though, and we'll never completely get rid of duplicate entries.

    At least it's not UT, where I've seen the same beer listed 4-5 times.
     
  29. cjgiant

    cjgiant Poo-Bah (5,223) Jul 13, 2013 District of Columbia
    Society

    True - and I'll be honest, I like seeing the difference in ratings based on brewer under which the entry was made. That said, most of the beers I'm thinking of (local-local collab limited on-prem release) generally have so few ratings as to draw any true "conclusions," which is also why it's a small issue, as mentioned.
     
    beertunes likes this.
  30. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Poo-Bah (9,109) Dec 8, 2007 North Carolina
    Moderator Society Trader

    The beer should only be listed under the brewery where the beer is made (or in the rare cases of gypsy brewers, the brewery who labels/distributes the beer).
     
    Bitterbill and beertunes like this.
  31. Todd

    Todd Founder (6,120) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Moderator Fest Crew Society

    To clarify, beers should ALWAYS be listed under the (beer marketing) company that owns the brands.
     
    Bitterbill and dbrauneis like this.
  32. zid

    zid Meyvn (1,192) Feb 15, 2010 New York
    Trader

    Love that Freudian slip of a typo. The above could be a motto. :wink::slight_smile:
     
  33. Beer_Stan

    Beer_Stan Initiate (160) Mar 15, 2014 California
    Trader

    Hold your horses for all the various "Black is Beautiful" entries that will be coming (over how many breweries??) I'm sure. Just might break the system.
     
  34. bluejacket74

    bluejacket74 Poo-Bah (5,373) Jul 4, 2005 Ohio
    Society

    Same with the different "All Together" entries. I just enter it in the system based on the brewery who made the beer, since with both All Together and Black is Beautiful some of the breweries put their own little spin on the beers so it's not like the exact same recipe was used for all of them.
     
    sulldaddy and Bitterbill like this.
  35. MacMalt

    MacMalt Poo-Bah (4,141) Jan 28, 2015 New Jersey
    Society Trader

    The timing of this thread is excellent. I've added numerous collaboration beers to the BA database using the same format that @woodychandler suggests. Last week, I noticed that those beers had been changed to just the name of the primary brewery but that the collaboration is now referenced in the commercial notes. I checked a couple of local breweries, notably Magnify and Carton, which had numerous beers formatted with the names of both collaborating brewers but the second names have been removed. I assumed this change was by design, i.e., the beer should now be added only under the primary brewery's name with the collaboration "noted" in the commercial notes. I prefer Woody's proposed format because it makes the collaboration more evident.
     
    woodychandler likes this.
  36. Todd

    Todd Founder (6,120) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Moderator Fest Crew Society

    MacMalt, bluejacket74 and zid like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.