I have run across this inquiry in my own reviewing twice, once with BCBS and now again with Backwood's Bastard. In both cases, I typed up my review for the current year and placed it below the review for the year prior. I made sure to note the scores for each category and the overall BA calculated score when I submitted my new numbers. With annual release favorites like Backwoods Bastard, BCBS, Expedition Stout, Abraxas, Xocoveza and KBS headed our way again within the next 3 months, I'm curious: how do members of the BA community handle reviewing a revisited beer? Do you simply ignore it, only reviewing one year ever? Do you delete out the old review and only keep a record of the current year? How do YOU do it? Personally, I always want to review a beer. As someone who reads reviews for hours on end before purchasing a new jacket, boots, suit, car, house, etc. purchase, I feel it's my duty to provide a review of the beer currently being stocked and sold on shelves. Likewise, I don't want to delete my old review, as if we all did that, there would be no record of what Backwoods Bastard, KBS, Expedition Stout, etc. was like a few years ago. For that reason, I submit my new review under my old review with the years labeled so readers can differentiate between years. I'm curious how others handle it.
Personally, if I just revisit the beer and update my notes if I notice something different unless it is something like a barrel-aged beer (which might have different barrels used) or a wild. In those cases I add some additional notes but I usually don't update my scores unless it is drastically different. I will say that I do not frequently have a lot of changes to my review from the original unless it was from early in my reviewing days.
I think the idea of appending your newest review under the old entry, so there's a running chronology of reviews, is pretty nifty. I don't normally update scores, unless it was a bad bottle in my original review. The overall experience with a beer is dependent on so much: your mood; your health; your environment; palate freshness. Plus, these beers really shouldn't change noticeably from year to year. Thus, I generally go with my first score and leave it alone, unless I see a very good reason to change it. I may, however, go back and add more notes if I feel I can make a review more accurate to the experience after revisiting. But like I said though, your approach is pretty cool.
Write up a new review for every vintage. You can only go so far though. If you think it's different, let your score reflect that. Cheers!
On those infrequent occasions when I re-review a beer, I edit the original review by updating whatever new verbiage and ratings with the original review and ratings below a dashed line. Opinions and ratings change. I just feel it's honorable to keep the original viewpoints along with updated impressions just to keep things real...
While I too don't do it often, here's one of my most extreme examples: https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/72/224/?ba=drtth#review I've done it that way a few times because I also wanted to also be able to jiggle my memory. In the example review I was taking advantage a rare stroke of good beer luck at finding those beers and being able to enjoy them over a relatively short time span.
I've only done it a couple of times but, I guess, my guiding principal has been that ain't nobody cares about the beer I drank last year, so I delete and replace, with a footnote that I've done so and why.
I think that is very thorough and also the best way to notice any changes to the beer or to your palate. I will tweak until I am done with that bottle or sixer of beer but I rarely revisit. Unless it's one I like a lot.
I revisit a lot of seasonal beers and update my notes/rating. It's fun to see how my palate, preference, and tasting skills have changed within a year. I do the same for wine vintages of my favorite producers, too.
Interesting. Thanks for your all's takes on it. I guess I should mention more in depth that I only re-review beer for seasonal release beers. While it's still under the same title, small variations in hop, and malt growers, barrel usage, and new adjuncts (although still under the same title...) can make a beer taste very different over the years. I do agree with the point about people most-likely not caring about a review of '15 Backwood's Bastard if '16 is the one on the shelf, but I just don't want to lose that data in the database. It also gives each year a solid reference point for how it was when fresh, which makes reviewing verticals a little more intricate and interesting.
I don't normally update reviews unless I find something dramatically different. Like if I had a bad bottle during the first review but find others that are much better and consistently so (first 4 pack of Dragons Milk was like that, first bottle was off the other 3 lived up to the hype). The only other exception would be if it was an early review and as my palette updates or I gain more experience with that category that I want to update what I've found.
