Some review advice needed

yes its nice to know you need twice the income of the average city to drink beer in NYC.

 

I don't see any harm in mentioning it. Price is, realistically, part of beer's overall quality. It needs be be priced according to its amount and quality.

 

Some people do review that way, and I understand why. I don't. I would say, for 2 beers of similar quality but different prices, "Such and such was good, but I can get (insert equally good beer) $2 cheaper for a sixer." The score should reflect the beer itself. If a beer is a 4.75 and it costs $1 per bottle, that's certainly worth noting in the review, but it's still a 4.75 and not a 5. Likewise, if I consider a beer to be a 2 on its own merit but it costs $100 for a bottle, I'll absolutely make note of that, but the beer itself is still a 2. That's me.
It also depends on markets, individual businesses, etc., so that should be kept in mind.

 

Its quite fair to include in the information you provide what you paid for the beer, but there are way to many intra and interstate variations in pricing structures for that to be a useful review criterion. My personl bias is to avoid price entirely and focus on the sensory qualities of the beer. Quite often I don't even remember the price I paid for the beer. For example I've an Ola Dubh 12 waiting in the basement and I literally have no memory of what I paid for it. That helps me focus on the beer.

For example its not unusual for large retail outlets to be able sell their beers at a lower price than you find at a Mom and Pop store and still be making a profit on the beer. I don't really think its fair to the beer to let my buying choices and opportunities have an effect on my evaluation of the beer. Similarly in some states you order a case of beer and have to order, say 99 other cases from that same distributor to get a delivery. Sometimes the price of beer will be the same to all retailers but the cost of delivery will be higher on smaller orders, etc., etc.

 

I've seen the Bros say that price should not be factored into a review- but I will mention it as an aside for sure if it's a really good or bad deal.

For example, stone enjoy by is great- but when I can get a 6er of lagunitas sucks for a dollar more it becomes a really shitty value for the stone beer.

 

Before the recent and mystifying elimination of category-by-category ratings for beer here on BA, I used to review beers. I would include consideration for value as part of the "overall" rating in the end, so that it would factor into the overall rating point total but not be too important.

Now that the Bros. have removed the category ratings, however, I have stopped reviewing beers and just tick them now, so...

 

also, I miss beerspy, is that coming back?

 

Hey Shogo! Where ya been hiding? Haven't seen ya around much for a while.

 

I've been around - just not here. Relocated to Philly, will try and be around a bit more as time allows!

 

I've wrestled with the conundrum you've pointed out here. I'd say that I agree with you in principle - the beer is still a 4.75, but it could also be a 4.78 or maybe a 4.8 in comparison to another beer that is also a 4.75 but costs $5 per bottle. I don't think you have to knock it all the way up to a 5 (unless of course you stick solely to the use of the .25 incremental rating scale).

I do try factor in price into my overall rating score, but I use the option to enter precise rating scores so that I can adjust on a more minute scale instead of taking larger jumps from 4.75 to 5, for example. I still use the old weighted average formula for rating A/S/T/M/O to produce a tentative score, but then I typically adjust up or down (no more than 2 tenths of a point in either direction) for "intangible" aspects of the beer - availability/accessibility of the beer and price-point/value being the two things that I most commonly adjust for. All other variables between two beers of the same style being equal (i.e. the A/S/T/M of both beers are on par with one another), I think the beer that offers the same quality for a lower price is deserving of a slight bump in score. I argue on the grounds that my review is my overall impression of the beer, the whole package. If I can have world class beer A for $1 and world class beer B for $5, and both beers would otherwise score a 4.75, I think A deserves a slight uptick because it is impressive - to me - that such beer A can be equally as enjoyable, yet I can enjoy 5x as many bottles as the price of 1 bottle of beer B. That is impressive to me, and if I'm truly impressed at a beer given the price point, such that I think additional praise is deserved, then my review score will show it based on the slight uptick. Just my .02.

 

As others have said, the cost shouldn't affect the actual review, but certainly mention it because it does indeed help other people when trying to decide whether to buy it or not. The reader should also understand the subjectivity of the price analysis and not necessarily use that as the final word when trying to decide whether to buy the beer or not. Sometimes comments like that save me though when I am on the fence about something.

 

The useful/not useful feature has come about basically by necessity since they've reduced the required number of characters for a review. For example, if a guy reviews a beer and all he says is "This is the closest thing to Heady I've had besides the real thing!" without any other description and then I have that beer but it's nothing like Heady, nor is it nearly as good, I feel completely justified in saying that review wasn't helpful.

I've reviewed over 1000 beers. If one person comes along and finds one of my reviews not useful, who cares? If many people start finding it not useful, I might look at it and check to see if there's anything lacking or inaccurate about it. If it's a beer that I've had multiple times and I know I've articulated how I feel about it in the best way that I can then, once again, who cares? If it's a beer I haven't had in a long time and I gave it a low rating, maybe I'll take the hint and give it another go. As most users on this forum I'm sure have found, it's best not to take any negative criticism on this site personally.

 

When you review, you are reviewing the beer.

Can you see the cost of the beer?
Can you smell the cost of the beer?
Can you taste the cost of the beer?
Can you feel the cost of the beer?

Obviously the answer to each of the above questions is an unequivocal "no". Of course when it comes to a category like "overall", I can at least understand the logic of saying that you will adjust the score based on the perceived value of the beer, but I still disagree with it. This is because no matter what, the price is not a characteristic inherent to the beer. The price can change from region to region, store to store, and given the reality of inflation, year to year. While we can all agree that reviews are subjective, they are intended to be the subjective evaluation of your sensory perception of the beer. The price you paid is simply not part of your perception of the beer.

All that said, I think it's fair to mention the price or the perceived value of the beer in your review. When I review, I'm making an account of my experience, and while I score it purely on the sensory elements, I will often provide as much context for my experience of the beer as possible, which occasionally includes price--for example, if a given beer is on the extreme end in either direction: very expensive or cheap.

 

I will sometimes adjust my ratings if low ABV beers are packed full of flavor and feel heavier/not thin or watery. Conversely if high ABV beers are crafted to go down way too easy and you ask yourself "how the heck is this 9+%...it drinks like a 5-6% brew" that also gets bonus points IMO.

 

I always consider the value of a beer but only when a cheap beer is good. like dirtwolf for example. if its a half decent beer at a good value it doesn't earn any extra points just because it's affordable. it has to still be good

 

Exactly right. My example is assuming the new BA rating system, whereby I'm forced to rate by .25 increments and have no choice otherwise. If I'm doing a personal review not on the site, my example doesn't apply strictly.