Reviewing Cellared Beers

Single new-to-me beers get reviewed immediately. If I buy multiple with plans to cellar, I'll review it fresh then go back and update if I find different results after cellaring. But - I would never lower my score if it tanked due to cellaring.

I've run into this with CBS, where I upped my score when it had been aged about 6 months. When cellared FBS tasted like green peppers or cellared BA Fidy got less bold, I commented on it but didn't lower the score.

 

But the person that unknowingly opens an infected 2015 could have looked at the reviews for that beer in and around 2015...if they were completely oblivious to everything that happened that year.

 

I have no idea when the purpose statement you quoted was written, but I suspect it was long after many ratings had been entered into this site. My point is that the powers that be at this particular site have superceded their users' preferences for how they wish to utilize this platform with their own (at least in terms of official policy, of which few users are aware let alone follow). The vast majority of ratings these days -- by multiple orders of magnitude -- take place at Untappd, which, as far as I know, has much more liberal, and I would say "user-friendly, " ratings policies (in the sense that users are given few if any official directives as to how they should rate).

I'll add that this site and Untappd seem to produce very similar numeric aggregate ratings for most beers. I think that the idea that BeerAdvocate users are applying some higher standard of discipline or are more sophisticated than Untappd users on average when it comes to ratings is "baloney." I do think the written reviews at any site are far more valuable to both the rater and the reader than are mere numeric ratings, and there's a higher proportion of written reviews here than on Untappd.

 

Dec 23, 2014, I provided the link....

You contradict yourself here. The fact that a higher proportion of ratings here are in the form of written reviews means both that they are more useful AND that they are applied with more discipline. Sophistication? IDK about that. But I do believe that a higher percentage of the written reviews here are posted by more knowledgeable / experienced consumers than the typical Untapped user. I suspect the ratings without written reviews are more or less equivalent between the two. I have no knowledge to back that up. It is just my opinion based on experience here and occasional visits to Untapped.

 

How is a thread a more effective way of describing how a specific beer is drinking than the beer's profile page?

Users and site visitors visit our beer pages to see how a beer tastes, smells, 'rates', etc.. To omit this data because it was poorly executed by the brewery is a disservice to consumers. With "Thread Talkers" and even Google pointing users to the beer profile pages, this is the best way to disseminate information vs. tucking it into the regional section of the forum.

 

'Ctrl' and 'F' keys pressed together give a search function for users on Microsoft Windows products. A user could pull up a beer's profile page and then search key terms individually with the function.

Personally, I use this quite a lot in my general operation of the site. Not only does it help find keywords within lists or reviews, but it also helps narrow down search results provided by the site.

 

Huh! Never knew that Ctrl-F trick. Learn something everyday. Thanks for the tip.

 

Damn man. 75% of my work day every damn day for 2 decades is Ctrl+f-ing

 

Same here. Thanks @Harrison8

 

Disagree. The bugs didn't climb into the bottle, it was infected when it left the brewery. Fair game.

 

Perhaps if BA provided reviews of BA beer by vintage...?[/QUOTE]

Which they do, provided there are significant variations in the base beer.

A brewery brews the same beer, ages it in the same type barrels every year? No, we don't need vintages.

The same base beer, in rye barrels one year, bourbon the next, gin the next? Sure thing!

 

I agree with you. I think it was mentioned above but it bears repeating, an infected beer should be reviewed to serve as a warning to anyone reading the review with the purpose of making a decision on the purchase of the beer. A mention should also be made regarding the age of the beer if known because that same beer on the shelf may be an earlier, same or later batch.

 

For those who don't know, there is a great thread for cellar reviews over in the aging/cellaring forums. Great place to deposit reviews of intentionally and unintentionally aged beers. Also a good resource for opinions about various beers sweet spots from lots of experienced folks

 

Yeah, when I review beers I always try and say when it was bottled/canned, provide the vintage year or at least try and guesstimate when I bought it. The more information people have about the beer, the better.