So where do you stand with your ratings?

Discussion in 'BeerAdvocate Talk' started by johnInLA, Dec 7, 2019.

  1. johnInLA

    johnInLA Champion (873) Jun 12, 2005 California

    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.

  2. unlikelyspiderperson

    unlikelyspiderperson Meyvn (1,133) Mar 12, 2013 California
    Society Trader

    Just took a look and a quick glance tells me that I am surprisingly average. Out of 350 rated beers, a little over 100 are higher rated than average (with at least 50 of those being within 5% of average), another 100ish are right at the average (probably meaning that not many of us have rated that beer), and the last 100 and some are rated below the average.

    I do tend to think, lately, that I am overly generous with my ratings because I definitely have the feeling that 3 is bad (not average) and so will give beers that are middling examples of their style 3.5/3.75 in a category. Something about setting out to rate a beer also seems to add a bit of gravitas to the beer itself in my experience. Like I have some sense that the fact that I'm even taking the time to review the beer means it MUST have something going for it. I also like to think that I seek out and drink above average beer in general, another bias that I'd suspect is wide spread. Either way, I've been thinking lately that I should go back and re-review all the beers I can that I've reviewed over the years and see how things have changed for me.

    But I also don't think I can ever take that perfect 5 away from Old Rasputin. I don't care how naive I was when I did that, I still remember my first ol raspy shared in a parking lot at the ripe ole' age of 19 with some weird and wonderful people and that will forever be the moment I realized that there was something to all those beers in the other coolers...
    TrojanRB, AlexIrigoyen, KRug and 14 others like this.
  3. FBarber

    FBarber Poo-Bah (2,989) Mar 5, 2016 Illinois
    Society Trader

    Interesting stuff. Its hard to get a good handle of the overview, but my median rDev is -1.0%

    of my 1,784 ratings/reviews my breakdown is as follows:
    • 1,009 less than the rDev for the beer
    • 83 at the rDev
    • 692 greater that the rDev for the beer.
    My median score is 3.96, but I imagine that is skewed upwards based on the fact that I buy and review beers that I reasonably expect to like or to be good.
  4. StoutElk_92

    StoutElk_92 Poo-Bah (2,297) Oct 30, 2015 Massachusetts

    I tend to overrate almost every beer on here, and by overrate I mean rate well higher than the BA avg score. Part of the reason why I signed up to contribute to this site is because I saw what I thought were unjust ratings and reviews, where people might leave a nice detailed review and give a solid beer what I thought was a low score, so I wanted to try to "correct" that with my own ratings and objective reviews. That score system seems pretty accurate and about right to me. There came a point during my ratings when I realized I needed to have a standard for a 5, since it took me so long to try beers of that grade I never knew what the best possible taste a beer might have was like, until I tried some mind-blowing beers and I realized "it doesn't get much better than this". I frequently give out 4.75s if a beer is hitting top grade notes for me, that is intense natural fruit flavors from hops in an IPA, or just typical intense characteristics from different beer styles. I give out 5s when I think it's not going to get too much better than that aroma or flavor or look or feel, imo. I'm fine and happy overrating beers because I know a lot of people will rate them lower and so it usually evens out to a fair average from my perspective. Nowadays I mostly just rate Trillium beers anyway or some other highly rated beers so the rating is usually over 4.5. I even rate lagers and saisons 4.5 typically if it has a solid flavor, and maybe even a 4.75 or 5, because why not if you think it's that good? A score lower than a 3 is for Budweiser and friends, no craft beers I've been near... and Wild Blue isn't craft beer.
  5. Greywulfken

    Greywulfken Poo-Bah (4,753) Aug 25, 2010 New York
    Society Trader

    I can still see that my earlier ratings (first few years) are no longer as "true" as my more recent ratings (past few years), like, the DIPA that got a 4.5 seven years ago probably wouldn't get a 4.5 today. I attribute this to my changing tastes, of course, but also my improved ability to evaluate beer.

    In terms of my overall rating approach, I'm a beer optimist, and usually choose beers I think I'd enjoy... I have more than twice as many beers rated higher than the rDev than below it, though that is less true the past few years than it was for years prior.
    Shanex, tobelerone, beergoot and 9 others like this.
  6. elNopalero

    elNopalero Poo-Bah (3,632) Oct 14, 2009 Texas
    Society Trader

    Excuse the naïveté here, but how can I find my overall rating percentages? I remember a few months ago looking up where I stood overall and getting that breakdown, but since then I haven’t been able to figure it out—or dig up the directions how to do it!

    My hunch is that I rate more generous than the average, and that this has skewed positive over time. I do my best to rate to style, as I think it’s a shame some of the worlds greatest beers just don’t get much (ratings) love sometimes. A 5 on anything, much less across the board, is simply mindblowing, but a 4 is still “good”—a B average, if you will.

    Overall, most days I liked what’s in my glass, and it shows in my ratings and reviews. There’s nothing objective or scientific about this.
  7. johnInLA

    johnInLA Champion (873) Jun 12, 2005 California

    Ahhhh, That beer we rated years ago when our palate was young and inexperienced.

    My thoughts are, for that batch, at that point in time, whereever you were in terms of your ability to rate a beer, that score was accurate. Want to change it? revisit the beer.

    I love hearing someone say they refuse to back out a 5 for Old Rasputin, because at that time it was a 5.

    The truth is a beer rating captures a point in time, batch, conditions, handing, tempurture, vessle, mood, amosphere, experience, etc, which really isn't negated by how things change going forward.
    #7 johnInLA, Dec 7, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
  8. beertunes

    beertunes Poo-Bah (6,565) Sep 24, 2007 Saint Martin

    My approach is that the first 4 categories are in individual vacuums, and the 5th, is where we can apply our personal biases.

    So: a beer can look great, but taste and smell bad, and be a rough drinker. Give it a a high score on looks, middling scores on aroma and taste, but, it didn't flow nicely across the tongue. Well, the overall is gonna be low.

    Often, I find that beers that I find lacking in the individual categories, end up being an enjoyable beer overall. Sometimes, the sum is greater than the total of the parts.
    TheDoctor, Roguer, Lucular and 9 others like this.
  9. rugene

    rugene Initiate (179) Mar 2, 2015 Quebec (Canada)

    I never gave a 5 stars rating, excellent beer is 4 to 4,75. A good beer is 3,75, and everything under 3,75 is average meaning not to buy again. The only reason I rate is to know what beers I should buy again because my memory can deceive me. I realize that my rating have change with my tastes over the last year since I have become an IPA fan.
  10. woodychandler

    woodychandler Poo-Bah (10,313) Apr 9, 2004 Pennsylvania
    Society Trader

    First, it strikes me that this thread really belongs in "BA Talk". What say you, @Todd ?

    SeCANd, I (kinda) know this answer. If you click on "Beers" on your profile, you will get your listing of reviewed and/or rated beers. To the far R of the headers of the columns is another tab marked "rDev". Click on that & you will get a sort by rDev from highest to lowest. That's great if you have a manageable number of reviews/ratings, but tough for us older users since I would have to click multiple times in increments of 50 to get to my median.

    If there is an easier way, I'd like to know, especially since I am a Society Member & mebbe have access to stats of which I am unaware & ignorant. Again, Fearless Leader ( @Todd )?
    rudzud, GuyFawkes and PapaGoose03 like this.
  11. Greywulfken

    Greywulfken Poo-Bah (4,753) Aug 25, 2010 New York
    Society Trader

    I agree - though there have been a few exceptions, where I've changed an old score without having the beer again...
    That's also similar for me - a 4.75 is my high-water mark for a beer - and a 4 is my personal dividing score between a beer I'd return to and one that I won't..
    johnInLA, FBarber and PapaGoose03 like this.
  12. Bshaw22

    Bshaw22 Crusader (718) Aug 29, 2013 Wisconsin

    I don’t quite understand this:
    “ 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”.

    If you were rating to style you would rate a hazy or pastry against all others Hazies. You wouldn’t rate it against lagers. That’s the true definition of rating to style.
    Maybe I’m not understanding you. Open to hear your thoughts, I’m sincerely not trying to be argumentative.


    In regard to my ratings. I’m all over the board. Some higher some lower. I try not to rate I’m hype is all.
  13. laketang

    laketang Meyvn (1,191) Mar 22, 2015 Illinois

    4.75 is my highest. I would say my buy again cutoff for non aals is probably around 3.75. Because I am careful with what I buy, I don't get a drain pour very often. Some of my lower scores may have more to do with my palate than the quality of the beer itself.
    Shanex and Greywulfken like this.
  14. islay

    islay Disciple (315) Jan 6, 2008 Minnesota

    Looks like you've been rating since 2013 and a member since 2005, so you predate the Uber era. That's notable because there's now a cultural mentality that 5 stars is the norm and only actively bad experiences receive below that. Many younger people when rating start from a 5 and work downward, usually not dipping very far, instead of starting from an average point and working downward or upward as appropriate. I think that's a real factor in ratings shifting upward in all platforms.

    I don't know if BeerAdvocate uses a 0 to 5 scale, a 1 to 5 scale, or something else, but I think people should think of the average beer as a 2.5 in the former case and a 3 in the latter and should try to have their scores reflect that in a theoretical roughly normal distribution (the standard deviation may vary by the rater, but the theoretical mean really shouldn't). Now, I know people are more prone to rating "good" beer in the first place; they seek it out and are more likely to rate it, so many people's actual (not theoretical) ratings naturally should skew upward. Nonetheless, anybody whose average rating is higher than the mid-to-high-3s usually is massively overrating beers in general, in my opinion.

    Unfortunately, I think that's the norm, especially here and at Untappd. Ratings skew about half a point lower at RateBeer, and I think people tend to overrate even there.
  15. socon67

    socon67 Poo-Bah (1,867) Jun 18, 2010 New York

    I tend to rate to the mean, with many beers rated in that 3.6-3.8 range. I think like most, I buy and rate beers that I tend to enjoy which keeps ratings higher. Only one "5" out of 2,600+ ratings.
    bmugan and FBarber like this.
  16. rgordon

    rgordon Meyvn (1,005) Apr 26, 2012 North Carolina

    I will review and describe beers, but I do not presume to judge them on a numeric scale. Never have and I just don't feel the need. I do read ratings and find them interesting.
  17. Squire

    Squire Poo-Bah (2,362) Jul 16, 2015 Mississippi
    Society Trader

    I don't set out with any particular purpose other than to describe what I'm drinking. Often my rating will be fairly close to the average but that's something I only notice afterward. Except for Lagers which simply don't very high ratings around here.
  18. StoutElk_92

    StoutElk_92 Poo-Bah (2,297) Oct 30, 2015 Massachusetts

    The question is what is your definition of an average beer that should be looked at as a 2.5 or 3? There is a lot of room upward from there.

    Imo Sam Adams beers are rated in the 3-3.75s generally and those are beers that I don't seek out, I just tried and didn't think it was that bad, but definitely nothing great. A 4 is a pretty good beer to me, and anything real good is above that. We all have our scale though.
  19. woodchipper

    woodchipper Meyvn (1,143) Oct 25, 2005 Connecticut

    Turns out 36% of my overall ratings are above the average, 1.5% are at average and the rest under.
    I am a little surprised because while rating a beer I often think I am being too generous. This probably results in an unconscious temptation to tamp down the numbers. I usually attribute the desire to rate high to the fact that the beers I rate are not random selections, but a curated selection of beers or breweries with a good reputations.
    Unless I looked at BA ratings prior for purchasing decisions I try NOT to look at other's reviews before I do mine.
    Greywulfken, johnInLA and VABA like this.
  20. Claude-Irishman

    Claude-Irishman Champion (835) Jun 4, 2015 New Jersey

    Usually a 3.0 to 3.5 to me is mostly not so good to mostly OK, rather then mostly good. I guess it is a matter of perspective-
    Blueribbon666 and Greywulfken like this.
  21. kojevergas

    kojevergas Poo-Bah (8,828) Aug 15, 2010 Louisiana
  22. beersampler6

    beersampler6 Meyvn (1,414) Apr 4, 2018 Michigan
    Society Trader

    I think my ratings have varied over the past year - I'll selectively try more highly-rated beers (or beers from great breweries), and yet I tend to be more critical.

    A quick look at my beer stats shows me that of the 920+ beers I've reviewed thus far, only 350 have been above the average BA rating.

    I also agree a "5" rating should be only for exceptional beers. I looked back at my highest rated beers (my own personal ratings) and I've only ever given two 5s, both for feel. Never given a 5 for appearance, aroma, taste or overall. My highest rated beer, overall, earned a 4.72. And I've tried some pretty darn amazing beers.
    Squire and johnInLA like this.
  23. johnInLA

    johnInLA Champion (873) Jun 12, 2005 California

    I agree with you and do tend to rate within style.

    My point is that style bias is a real thing. Many popular styles often get significantly higher ratings then other styles. So if I am rating a pastry stout and my style bias is less then the norm, my ratings are likely to scew lower then the norm.
  24. cavedave

    cavedave Poo-Bah (2,611) Mar 12, 2009 New York

    I only review approx. 1 of every 6 new beers I try.

    I heavily favor putting reviews for breweries that are local, breweries I like, and for beers that don't have any, or few, reviews posted.

    I rate higher than average generally. Part of this I believe is due to no general understanding among site users of whether 3 is average, or 2.5 is average, or even some other understanding of how the number ratings should be used. Part of it is due to my consciously and successfully using this site and other resources to get beers that I believe will provide excellent results.

    I haven't judged in a number of years, but when I review/rate a beer I do it by the method we used as judges rating to style.
    Bitterbill, Squire, johnInLA and 2 others like this.
  25. GuyFawkes

    GuyFawkes Poo-Bah (4,344) Apr 7, 2011 Illinois
    Society Trader

    I hate that you did this. I think you should rate the beer as you actually think it is, not try to "correct" others.

    I do think, with hundreds of hours of therapy and the full support of my family & friends that I'll get over it.
    #25 GuyFawkes, Dec 8, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
  26. StoutElk_92

    StoutElk_92 Poo-Bah (2,297) Oct 30, 2015 Massachusetts

    I’m “correcting” others by rating how I think it actually is. When everyone rates how they think the beer is, then an average comes from it. When I first started rating a mistake I used to make was rating close to the avg thinking that others knew more than I did and whatever is close to the average is correct, not realizing that there is no correct rating, that it’s all subjective. I don’t rate high to spite people, I rate what I think is fair, which is higher than average typically, and that’s fine because most BA’s underrate imo. It all balances out to make an average.
    beergoot, beersampler6 and johnInLA like this.
  27. rugene

    rugene Initiate (179) Mar 2, 2015 Quebec (Canada)

    Don't want to talk too much about the competition, but have you notice how ratebeer web site ratings are a lot more critical than our beeradvocate. Are they snob! or tired of enjoying beers? Most of their ratings are lower than those on this site.
    Mister_Faucher likes this.
  28. Bshaw22

    Bshaw22 Crusader (718) Aug 29, 2013 Wisconsin

    I see your point. I do the same thing with pastries as I don’t live the style. I just am not in love with sweet stuff.
  29. SoCalBeerIdiot

    SoCalBeerIdiot Savant (914) Mar 10, 2013 California
    Society Trader

    I posted this on another thread in 2014...little has changed with how I rate since then except nearly all my ratings now go on Untappd, not BA. I'm a bit of a ticker (still) and that comes through in how I describe my rating system.

    1 - reserved for skunked AALs and Magic Hat #9 (so gross)
    2 - pretty good...for an AAL (womp, womp!)
    3 - average beer; no need to have again
    3.25 - slightly above avg.; definitely not having this (or anything rated less than this) again unless there are no better options
    3.5 - good but not great; not worth having again unless the only other options are non-craft
    3.75 - pretty good but would try something NEW over having this again
    4 - Really good for its style; would drink again for sure
    4.25 - Would get this again even over *most* beers I've not yet tried
    4.5 - I would drive across town to drink this or procure a bottle of it
    4.75 - Not only would I drive across town for it, I'd STAND IN LINE FOR IT (gasp!)
    5 - A perfect example of it's style and really special anytime I get to have one

    Sometimes I have a beer in a style I don't like, but I really enjoy anyways so I'll give them a little bump (usually .25-.5 depending how much I like it).

    Sometimes I'm drinking an average-ish beer right in front of a brewery rep so I'll give it a bump of .25 to stay in their good graces (hey, I'm only human).

    Sometimes someone will share a beer with me that I don't like OR I'm drinking a beer I don't like at the brewery or in front of a brewery rep--in these cases I check into it on Untappd but don't give it a rating. The comment is usually, "Really interesting...glad I tried this" which is code for "I didn't like this. Don't bother drinking again."
  30. jhavs

    jhavs Poo-Bah (1,799) Apr 16, 2015 New Hampshire
    Society Trader

    I equate my ratings to academic grades (rightfully or not). This is my internal perception. For me, that makes a 4.0 an 80%. Which is a B-.

    I wouldn't buy a B- again.

    By looking at my reviews, I seem to rate high but my rDev isn't that far off in most examples.
  31. ScaryEd

    ScaryEd Poo-Bah (2,025) Feb 19, 2012 New Hampshire

    I'm incredibly biased because I just love beer. The vast majority of my ratings are well above 3.5. I'm also style biased. For example: a good, but not great IPA will get a 3.5-3.75. However a good, but not great AAL will get a 2.75-3.00.

    I'm trying to correct this in my more recent reviews but old habits and all that.

    Ultimately though I rate for myself, so it's not a big deal for me. I'd just like to be less biased and be able to rate more to style than preference.

    This also goes for breweries, too. Tree House is the best example. A good, but not great NEIPA from them is still getting a 4, at the very least. Hell I think I've even called a few 4.25 beers of theirs "disappointing".
    Blueribbon666 likes this.
  32. invertalon

    invertalon Crusader (797) Jan 27, 2009 Ohio
    Society Trader

    I rate above average than most. But my scale is skewed on the high end. I also rate to-style, so while two different beers share a same rating, I still may heavily prefer drinking one over another that is not captured in my rating.

    I have AAL’s rated just as high as my favorite BA Stouts or IPA’s.

    But most of the time these days, I don’t rate. The reason is my tastes and preferences are always changing obviously, with beers I disliked years ago love today and vice versa. So while I like to see what I have had, I don’t particularly care how much I liked, or disliked it at those various times I have enjoyed it. I tend to only rate those at the top of class, or the bottom as a warning to avoid as future reference.

    In terms of my rating scores (out of 5), I’d say my average is around 4. Which I consider the point of “good beer”.

    4.75 – 5 would be “top of class” with great execution and quality.

    4.25 – 4.75 would be a fantastic, well made beer. Could show some minor improvement on the lower end of the score. But nothing to pass up and gladly drink over and over again.

    3.5 – 4.25 is good, but not great. Lacking “it” factor, perhaps a bit boring for the style. Better options available.

    3 – 3.5 – Some flaws, mediocre quality. Usually a beer I will not buy again.

    2 – 3 - Flawed, quality is sub-par. May end up down the drain more often than not.

    0 – 2 – Definitely down the drain, heavily flawed.
    #32 invertalon, Dec 10, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2019
  33. tobelerone

    tobelerone Poo-Bah (2,748) Dec 1, 2010 New York
    Society Trader

    this is an interesting thread so far and it’s illuminating to hear everyone’s divergent approaches. Two things stood out in your post which to me need clarification:

    How does uber factor into this conversation?

    I haven’t observed that the “cultural mentality is five stars is the norm.” How did you come to that conclusion? I use untappd sparingly so maybe I’m
    Missing something? BA is my predominant beer resource and where I do all my rating.
  34. jhavs

    jhavs Poo-Bah (1,799) Apr 16, 2015 New Hampshire
    Society Trader

    On Uber, if a driver or traveler does not have a rating at or near 5 stars they are considered low quality options. A high amount of Uber drivers or users have ratings in the 4.90 range.
    tobelerone and islay like this.
  35. tobelerone

    tobelerone Poo-Bah (2,748) Dec 1, 2010 New York
    Society Trader

    Ah I see! Don’t use Uber very often, prefer Lyft but even that’s like 3-4 times a year. Thanks.
    jhavs likes this.
  36. AZBeerDude72

    AZBeerDude72 Poo-Bah (1,848) Jun 10, 2016 Arizona
    Society Trader

    1 = Trash
    5 = Perfection
    2.5 = Average run of the mill beer.
    3 = Decent beer, daily drinker but nothing that blows me away.
    4 = What I consider a solid, well made beer, that I would run out for and enjoy daily.
    All other points just a dial in on the great or poor side of the beer. I will usually up tick or down tick based on style, appearance, etc.

    I always get a solid feel for a beer and know the range then I tweak my number based on the rest.

    tobelerone likes this.
  37. Roguer

    Roguer Poo-Bah (4,546) Mar 25, 2013 Georgia
    Moderator Society Trader

    While most don't take this approach to the Overall category, that's exactly how I use it. A beer that is 4.0 across the board, for example, is fairly uncommon; most beers have some flaws somewhere.

    I also use Overall to help rate to style. It's hard to imagine a Pilsner that tastes like a perfect 5.0 for my palate, but it could be brewed perfectly to style (theoretically). It's a way to help balance out rating to style, without having to completely disregard personal preference (which some people pretend they do, but is really impossible).
  38. Roguer

    Roguer Poo-Bah (4,546) Mar 25, 2013 Georgia
    Moderator Society Trader

    I kind of look at the ratings like this:

    5.0: Literally perfect. Could not be improved in that aspect. I have only given one beer perfect 5.0s across the board, in over 2500 reviews - one beer where I could literally not suggest any way the beer could be improved.

    4.0-4.75: Without noticeable flaw; outstanding in style. A beer can move between 4.0 and 4.75 depending on just how well-executed the aspect is, but any beer warranting a 4.0 doesn't have any obvious flaws, at a minimum. Appearance is a good example: an IPA with very poor head production will receive, at most, a 3.75 from me, assuming everything else is good. A beer with floaties will likely land in the same range, although there can be exceptions (both up and down).

    Beers in this range are worth buying every time you see them (or when you run out), worth picking over others of their style, worth seeking out and potentially trading for. These beers crack the upper echelon, and in the upper 4s, are genuinely world class.

    3.0-3.75: Average-to-good, borderline great at 3.75. These beers have flaws, but are still enjoyable. Usually these are beers I wouldn't mind having on tap locally, or as low-price 6-pack offerings. Especially in the 3.75 range, I absolutely enjoy the brew, but I don't consider it worth exerting effort to attain.

    Beers in this range are worth picking up or ordering on tap if you see it. They're enjoyable, and even worth sharing perhaps, but they aren't must-haves. The only reasons I'll normally turn down a beer in this range are if I'm not quite in the mood for the style, or if there's a better example of the style also available.

    <3.0: A flaw that detracts from my enjoyment of that aspect. For some beers, that's really unappealing floaties that takes Appearance <3.0. Strong diacetyl notes are nearly an automatic <3.0 in Smell.

    A beer can absolutely have one or more qualities <3.0 and still be a damn good brew. If a beer looks like absolute ass to me, but still tastes amazing, I'm going to rate each of those attributes accordingly. It's very rare for beers to come in <3.0 weighted average from me (exactly 60 of my 2500+ reviews come in <3.0 weighted). A sub-3.0 beer might have a time and a place, but I'll never drink one given a decent alternative (like liquor, water, or suicide).

    <2.0: Literally poor. The flaw, or flaws, does more than just make the beer unappealing; it makes it something I would not want to smell, look at, or drink. It is very tough for this to be the case, but it does happen.

    I have only had 5 beers come in weighted <2.0. It's quite tough to do so, because not only do all, or at least most, of the aspects need to be legitimately poor, it implies that there are no circumstances under which I want to drink that beer. (Checking with my list: yep. 100% truth.)
  39. officerbill

    officerbill Devotee (428) Feb 9, 2019 New York

    Never thought to check before.
    I try to review based on how I brought that beer represents it's style in L, S, T, F and whether or not I like it in Overall.

    Looks like I rate German & Belgian imports above the rDev and American versions of German styles below; probably because the American versions tend to be over-hopped.
    Junior, Roguer and Squire like this.
  40. Smakawhat

    Smakawhat Poo-Bah (7,156) Mar 18, 2008 Maryland

    The only thing that strikes me for my ratings which isn't a big surprise, is that the vast majority of beers that I have had are solid to exceptional.

    This is no surprise to me, the plethora of very good beer that is out there is just immense.
    Junior, Shanex and PapaGoose03 like this.