I was reviewing my ratings tonight and noticed I' m significantly more critical then most BA's. What I mean by that is the majority of my ratings are below the norm. Frankly, I am quite pleased with that. but I suspect I approach beer differently than many people on this site or the beer community in general. Let me start with the criteria that I use to rate a beer: I prefer the five criteria approach used by this site to rate a beer. I will admit I personally keep a rating database of my scores only using an overall score, but I do not share that publicly. I feel a public rating ( or review ) deserves a fair score done under proper conditions and many of my personal scores are done under less then optimal conditions so I don't share them publicly. Admittedly I'm an old timer and I am old school in my approach. For full disclosure, this is what my ratings mean, for each of the 5 point criteria 5.0 - A stand out amongst excellent peers 4.75 - solidly excellent 4.5 - mostly excellent with some very good characteristics 4.25 - mostly very good with some excellent characteristics 4.00 - solidly very good 3.75 - mostly very good with some good characteristics 3.50 - mostly good with some very good characteristics 3.25 - Solidly good 3.00 - Mostly good with some flaws 2.75 - 2.00 - Not good, obvious flaws 1.75 - 1.00 - Poor, drain pour flaws I also tend to rate within style. So maybe my below norm rating is due to the fact that I don't view hazy IPA's, desert stouts or kettle sours as superior to other styles. Regardless of where I stand, where do you stand. do you generally rate higher, lower or on par with the BA community and why.? I would love here other perspective on this.