Style bias in ratings on this site

yes.

 

There is absolutely no doubt that the majority of BAs favor BIG & BOLD beers.

The bigness and boldness can be from:

· A lot of hops

· High ABV

· Barrel Aging

· A lot of sour

· Unique ingredients (e.g., coffee)

· A lot of funk

· Etc.

Needless to say but multiple qualities of the above will be appreciated as well. For example: Barrel Aged Imperial Stout with coffee.

Cheers!

 

My reviews for beers that aren't stouts/IPAs/sours always tend to be higher than the average grade, because I try to review them as they were meant to be reviewed on this site, with style in mind.

 

At what point does "preference" become "bias"? Maybe DIPA's are better than Czech Pilseners. That is obviously a purely subjective topic, and a somewhat facetious comment on my part.

I see the topic of style bias come up a lot. My question is this--what are the theories on the genesis of this bias? What makes people "decide" that they like an imperial stout more than a kolsch? This site also clearly has an "American" bias so the ratings reflect that. But still, what makes Americans prefer any given style over another? Marketing? Popular culture? Whenever I rate any beer I try to balance my personal preferences with style expectations, but if a certain style is better to me, how could I not intrisincally tend to rate it higher?

 

I think some people only review beers that absolutely blow them away- and beers that blow people away are the extreme beers you're talking about.

Something subtle, pleasant, and tasty, like a well made pilsner or bitter, isn't going to blow someone away, even if they like it a lot, so they're probably not going to review it.

Personally, I review basically every beer I try, and try to rate them to style and how well they were made, not how much it "blew me away."

 

From what I can tell, the majority of people do not rate to style on this site, rather, they rate based on how much the beer blows them away. It blows my mind that beers like NG Hometown Blonde or Great Lakes Dortmunder Gold/Eliot Ness are not 4.3 or above since they are both excellent and excellent examples of their respective styles. Furthermore, beers like Weihenstephaner Hefe (or everything they or Ayinger make), while highly rated, should be damn near a 4.75 considering how amazing they are within their style.

It's just how BA is. RateBeer does things to style, but they rate everything roughly 100 unless it's offensively bad, so I can't really trust what they do.

 

This is true, but if you dig a bit further, you'll notice it's not just BIG and BOLD, but BIG and BOLD flavors that are familiar and easy to discern.

Guava, mango, peach, coffee, chocolate, pumpkin (well, more like cinnamon and nutmeg), bourbon, vanilla, sour...etc.

I've found beers that accent Pils, Munich, and Vienna malts aren't as highly rated. And while hops do get attention, not all hops do. English ales that may highlight Fuggles, or Czech Pilsners that showcase Saaz, do not garner favorable ratings from Beeradvocates either.

Heck, I even feel Cascade has fallen so far out of favor that something as wonderful as Sierra Nevada Pale Ale has been diminished by "ratings" over time.

 

It's intensity of flavor that makes people rate highly. A solid example is the difference in rating between Jester King Atrial Rubicite and La Vie en Rose or Montmorency vs. Balaton and Detritivore. Most of the less positive ratings for La Vie and Detrit are because raspberries aren't as intense as Atrial, but this is the entire point of the beer. It's the second runnings, so of course it's not going to be the same intensity; it's meant to be subtle. BA generally doesn't appreciate subtlety, therefore subtle styles like most lagers, bitters, blondes, etc. are not highly rated.

 

For what it's worth, I have a Maibock, a Vienna, and 3 Helles in my personal top 10.

 

Yeah - people tend to rate beers based on how much they enjoy them, and I like that because then you get a "how much do I like this beer" rating, which to me, is a very useful bit of information. Of course, there are arguments to be made that each style should be rated against only itself, and that is still doable here if you look at each style list individually, and take the highest rated one as the (current) ceiling.

 

I can appreciate that line of thinking, but then the question becomes one of the inherently "attractive" quality of a given style. For example, Hot Pockets are inferior to filet mignon. Should the "perfect" Hot Pocket be rated higher than a "good" filet just because it accomplished being what it's supposed to be? I'm obvously playing devil's advocate here, so please don't interpret my commentary as a dismissal of underappreciated styles of beer.

 

I would say in your example that the perfect Hot Pocket should be given a 5/5 in the genre/style of microwaved pizza-flavored gut bombs. A good filet would be roughly 3-3.5/5 on the scale of steaks.

This does bring up an interesting point that I think you were alluding to, though: what about on the scale of food (here, beer)? I don't think there would be many arguments that "microwaved pizza-flavored gut bombs" are inferior to "steak," but does that mean "blonde ales" are inferior to "IIPAs"? It's a tough question, especially since I would say no, but I would of course say steak is better than a microwaved pizza-flavored gut bomb.

 

Culturally we have a predilection for big, bold, loud, over the top anything...Monster Trucks, Football, behemoth TV's, muscle cars, and silicone implants...bigger better faster louder...we prefer "in your face" to sophisticated...this is not a judgement just an observation I make with my Ford hat held to my heart as I stand in front of my velvet painting of Elvis

 

This is a faulty comparison IMO. Much more apt would be to say, should a Hot Pocket (or to make it even more apt, a hand-crafted pizza) with the most intense tasting fillings/toppings be considered superior to one that uses more subtle fillings/toppings but has a better crafted dough and/or sauce.

 

In context such as ratings of things preference and bias are synonymous terms.

As for the sources of the bias, the ones that affect the top 250 list are at least two fold. E.g., Folks new to something like beer are likely to have a decided preference for strong, intense flavors. It often takes a bit of experience to come to recognize that sometimes subtle and gentle can be as good or better. Second, factors such as handling conditions and distance the beer has to travel from the brewery are typical ignored. And since the site ratings are not corrected for style differences, the "intensity" bias and/or other biases are quite visible.

 

My rather limited observations brought me to the same conclusion. I frequently see only intense beers receiving high praise and acclaim, while phenomenal brews like Eliot or Ayinger Brau Weisse get ignored. It's as if there's a significant number of beer raters with either palates so wrecked or untrained they can't taste any flavor that isn't huge, or just more wow factor from the huge flavors.

I'll admit I'm a sucker for a good Russian Imperial Stout or quad, but I try to rate them against other RISes or quads, and rate the more subtle styles according to what they are. Putting an Eliot Ness up against a Bourbon County Stout on the exact same scale using the exact same criteria is rather like doing away with weight divisions in the UFC and letting Rich Franklin in his prime go at the flyweights for the One And Only Championship Belt.

 

I don't really think they can't taste it; I think, like I said above, that they don't appreciate subtlety and balance much. I love both subtle beers like Weihenstephaner Original and New Glarus Two Women as well as insanely intense beers like Cigar City Double Barrel Hunahpu and The Alchemist Heady Topper.

 

Yeah, well you're one of those weird people who likes non-imperial stout malts. I have no patience for beer "advocates" like you.

 

When looking for a beer in a non-favored style, you can generally place a fair amount of faith in the BA ratings, so long as you recognize that the numbers/scale in do not have exactly the same meaning in one style category as they do for another style category (e.g., a 4.5 beer in one style category is not equal to a 4.5 beer in another category so comparing them is not a worthwhile guide). The top rated beers within a style will ordinarily be among the best available for the style (ignoring the limitations of availability etc., eg., many really good British cask ales will never get rated very much and may not even appear on the list because those who have access to them don't participate in the site).