With a "KBS/Pliny/[Insert beer with long-standing reputation and a high rating] is overrated" thread popping up every week, or even day, it got me thinking (which can have disastrous consequences). While I strongly dislike the way "overrated" gets bandied about on here, for some of these beers that have been brewed for a while and have thousands of reviews, perhaps they shouldn't get to dine out on older reviews/ratings that quite possibly don't reflect current-day sentiments. A few years ago Pliny was essentially seen as a peerless DIPA to many beer geeks. Cut to the present day, and with so many other excellent options out there, it may not even be on someone's top 20 favourite DIPA list. Same goes for KBS when it comes to BA stouts. On the flip side, I would say something like Rochefort 10 is probably viewed in a very similar light as it was a few years ago, because nobody has yet to make a serious challenge to the big name Belgian quads (yes I'm sure someone has a local brewery where the head brewer was a feral child that was brought up by Belgian monks before moving to the USA, that puts out a killer 200 bottle-count quad - you get my point though). So what if, once a beer hits a certain number of reviews/ratings (e.g. 5,000), from that point on, only the 5,000 most recent reviews/ratings contribute towards it's overall score? I think that way people could feel comfortable knowing that the score is fairly indicative of what the BA population as a whole currently think, and perhaps this will move people's mindset away from "this beer is overrated" to "interesting, I don't like this beer nearly as much as most BAs" (I'm sure this is wishful thinking). Anyway.... discuss I also added some voting buttons with a few different review limits, or an option to show you think this is basically a s**t idea.