Suggestions: add WCIPA as a style and notes when adding a beer

I will add notes even if they are tasting notes/flavor + aroma profile if that is the description of the beer provided by the brewery not when it is just from some individual user.

 

Some good points here.

As previously mentioned, I do plan on allowing more users to add "notes" and I like the idea of renaming the field to something that's a bit more descriptive/focused.

 

To me, it depends on what the brewery provides. If they say, "Intensely juicy notes of stone fruit and mango from a judicious amount of Citra and Nelson Sauvin hops!" then I'm good (completely made up example). If, however, the brewery notes are simply, "Clean-tasting, refreshing, and citrusy!" then I don't.

I don't mind a little bit of editorializing on the part of the brewery - it's their right - but I want them to at least tell us something objective about the beer to go with it. If I wanted pure tasting notes ... I'd read the reviews.

 

I'm not entirely sure I follow.

It's not about being informative; it's about the terms on this site, which specify that notes shouldn't be simply personal tasting notes, but rather something objective about the beer itself.

When I'm reviewing submitted notes, it's often not clear if what is being submitted is cut and paste from the brewery, typed from a can/bottle, or entirely from the user. (Just as often people do cite their source, so this is not by any means a frequent problem.)

So if the submission is simply, "Notes of bright pine and crisp orange peel," I have two problems:

1) I don't know if that's from the brewery.
2) It's very clearly only a subjective tasting note, which is what this site's instructions tell you not to include under notes. That's what a review is for.

Now, it could be argued that if those notes came directly from the brewery, that's still fine - but to me, that's now subjective and a matter of personal opinion. Such a note, even if it's from the brewery directly, is still nothing more than a subjective tasting note. The source is different (the brewer), but the content is not. Such a note is really a review, disguised as a note.

Again, I'm not 100% against including the brewer's "intent," so to speak, as part of the note, when it's directly from the brewery. I'm against a subjective review being the only content of a note, as I feel that goes against our site's instructions on adding a beer and notes. If the brewery wants to say something along the lines of, "A generous addition of Citra hops gives this pale ale bright aromatics of orange and grapefruit," that's kind of blurring the line, but at least there's some objective information being presented by the brewery, along with their intent.

As for what the brewery thinks is "good enough," we also sort beers by style guidelines. As of right now, "New England IPA" includes the imperial strength version of NE IPAs. Tree House is a good example, where many of their beers are simply labeled, "American IPA," or "Imperial IPA," but which quite obviously belong in the NE IPA category. The brewery thought "American IPA" was good enough, but on a site like this, it simply wouldn't make any sense to put, say, Julius out of the NE IPA category and into a category with DFH 60 min.

 

Just looking quickly, I found the following, which may or may not support my opinion:

https://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/how-to-add-beers-on-beeradvocate.193134/

(In that thread, under notes, it further specifies: "Select "Update This Beer" link/dropdown menu on the beer's page and "Report an Update." Notes may include additional information about the beer (e.g. brewery/commercial description, collaboration information, hop/malt ingredients, IBUs, etc.)")

When you add a beer, under notes (which, granted, isn't an option for most users):

"(optional; do not add any personal info / opinions!)"

So not exactly the way I stated it, and I may either be remembering an older phrasing, or just my own interpretation. Or perhaps there's more info on the site that discusses it further. I may (or may not) be interpreting it stricter than others, but I think I've justified my interpretation fairly clearly.

I get what you're saying, other than any energy or time spent on "avoiding" such a thing. It's more energy to validate that specific notes came from a brewery, and/or regard the specific beer. Again, notes have to be approved by a moderator, so it's not like we're routinely browsing beer entries to see if any notes need to be deleted; it's a matter of whether or not we approve notes. It's less energy and work to deny an update, not more.

I can certainly see how tasting notes are helpful. It just seems that that's the entire purpose of reviews. It's redundant to have tasting notes in the Notes section.

Because of our process for approving notes (which Todd has addressed upstream), it is indeed often easier to find notes on Untappd. It is also easier to find inaccurate entries, inappropriate notes, notes that are in conflict with the brewer's notes, etc. on Untappd. Sometimes submissions for notes here are just cut and paste from Untappd, and when I reference it against the brewery, I find a discrepancy. Easier doesn't translate to more accurate.

 

Locking this one down now as I don't want to waste more of anyone's time debating these two suggestions:

1. WCIPA was slated to be added long before this thread. It's one of several new styles to be added in the near future.
2. The "notes" field for beers has always been for information about the beer from the brewer, as noted in the How to Add Beers page that's also linked on the add a beer form. Extending the ability to add notes to certain members is already in the works, otherwise you can report an update as usual.

Thanks for the feedback.