Ratings... should the contribution be restricted?

You aren't crazy and it has bugged me forever, but there isn't any way around it. I just think if you don't like the style don't review it. I guess if an rdev is +/- a certain number they could be thrown out, but that would throw a monkey wrench into the current ratings most likely.

 

this won't cause any fuss; it's been posted countless times before.

no, no one should be restricted from reviewing on BA as long as they follow the rules. if you think a review is inappropriate, report it to the bros. i've done this before myself, and it does work if there's actually something wrong with the review.

 

Give it time young friend. You've only been on the site for a few months. don't let the hate get to you so soon. You have plenty of time for that. How many beers have you reviewed.

 

On the whole it's best not to buy and drink a beer of a style you don't like!
You have to stand back.One of the things I do for CAMRA is to survey pubs and find out how good their beer is.This does mean that on occasion I drink a brew which is far from being a favourite and wouldn't normally buy.Same thing applies when judging in competitions-I have to ignore personal preference and review the beer from an objective point of view.

 

I mean in theory it sounds good, stop people that don't like Sours from reviewing Sours for example, but once you start censoring reviews it starts to discount the whole review score system, then we'll have dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

 

The best way to gain experience is to do it. Jump in, buy a new beer, try and give it a review. It doesn't have to be the best review in the world- but by getting into the process you'll sharpen your skills at it.

You've had 200 craft beers? That's far more than some people who review. And you have a reviewing background with wine. You're more than 'qualified' to review, give it a rip!

 

What people need to learn about these beer sites is exactly this:

Usually with uber hyped beers (with a fair amount of reviews) at the very least it will be a decent beer. With beers that have a terrible score (and a fair amount of reviews) at best they'll be a decent beer. So cast your vote so the rest can get a better idea of what the average beer nerd thinks about the beer.

 

It's possible to review a style one doesn't care for fairly, and I'd like to see more people do it. Scotch Ales are among my least favorite styles, but I keep trying them, because sometimes I hit on one that I like. As long as I recognize that a beer is good for it's style, and rate it fairly, I'll keep trying them.

The flip side is true as well, not every example of one's favorite style is great. I love Tripel's, and have a hard time not giving them all high scores. But I make myself try to be objective. I don't compare a Scotch Ale to a Tripel and say that the Tripel is automatically better, I'll say that this Scotch is a better Scotch, than that Tripel is a Tripel.

 

The "Hads" with a simple rating is a good tool for tracking, I have some in my hads that I would like to go back and review and a couple that I hope I never see again.

 

What are you trying to do? Knock every Imperial Stout out of the Top 100??

 

I sure as hell hope not! Every tongue's opinion is valid, whether they've had 2 beers or 2,000, whether they hate certain styles or love them, whether they know how to eruditely put their taste perceptions into words or they're only able to just list some vague sense o' what they're sloshin' 'round in their mouths. I will echo the sentiments of the best liberal arts professors (and students) out there: As long as you speak your mind and can back up your opinion, you'll do just fine.

 

If you only want to see reviews from the most experienced reviewers, just click the "Top Reviewers" button on a beer's page to sort its reviews in descending order based on total # of reviews a user has contributed. Obviously "trained" is not necessarily the same thing as "experienced," but you'll at least be dealing with people who are definitely familiar with the style in question.

 

Nobody should be restricted from reviewing, but I think there should be an easier way to report bad reviews. Specifically I'm referring to the ones where the person states flat out that they are "reviewing" simply because they like the beer and they think its rating is too low and proceed to give it 4.5s and 5s without including anything that constitutes a real review. A simple Report button under each review seems like a good step towards clearing out bad/spam reviews in my opinion.

 

Started a thread about this on the old site and thought that maybe restricting the contribution of new reviewers' reviews to the overall score of a beer may be beneficial ie. until you have X (25-50 or whathaveyou) amount of reviews, your numerical rating of a beer will not contribute to the overall score, however the review and score can still be posted (I think the other site has a limitation similar to this which may be useful). May help to curb artificially inflated scores from people with a very small amount of reviews or people joining the site to blow-up/knock down a particular beer(s) score

 

It's just the way it is. I try to review to what I think comparatively about a beer. DIPAs always tend to be higher for me, but if I don't like a beer I won't rate it horribly if it's in a style I don't like as much. I'll just mark it as a had and give it a comparative score, instead of trying to review it when I'm not a good person to be writing the review. I don't like Belgians nearly as much as IPAs, but I won't shit on a beer if it's a good Belgian and I can tell it's good for the style. People who review imperial stouts saying that they hate roasty beers and give KBS or something a 2, that's a different story on the other hand. I don't think that gives people any idea of what a beer is really like.