the look criteria

Does Coors Light not look light a light lager is expected and designed to look? I never get the people who insist on the importance of rating in consideration of style (I'm not saying that's you, @TrojanRB) but then give remarkably low ratings to flawlessly executed light lagers and AALs. I'm not suggesting that Coors Light deserves a high rating; it doesn't (at least at a consumer-driven, craft-beer-oriented site like this one). I'm saying that rating in consideration of style is silly in part because it should result in beers like Coors Light getting high ratings (even though, in practice, they don't, because people indeed use hedonic scales even though they're instructed not to do so).

 

I would not sweat this one at all. Look gets a very small weighting in every rating system I have seen. Your high rating on look is not going to significantly move its overall rating. Besides, if it looks is true to style, why not give it credit.

On a side note, .25 increments for look is overkill, even though admittedly I use it. I think whole numbers 1 to 5, is generally sufficient for look, given its minimal weighting.

 

I agree with this.

Not so much this.

Rating by style is how beer competitions are conducted. Style creates a set of expectations, and yes even a bias, but it also allows similar beers to compete against each other on a level playing field. Assuming all beers should have a large frothy head seems more silly to me then rating by style. Yet, while I personally consider both style and brewer's intent when rating, I also understand other people that just prefer to rate based on what they like. And so an average NEIPA will often have a higher score then a great Pilsner.

IMO, Both rating approaches are valid. The silliness comes into play when someone thinks they can define rating for everyone else.

 

I understand what you are saying, and agree with it to a degree.

But it’s the wrong time to start this argument IMO.

And for the record, pour glasses of Coors Light, Bud Light, and Miller Lite. Even for the style, Coors light looks like shit.

 

Appearance is obviously the least important aspect when rating beer, but it does have its relevance. The two major factors I use when judging a beer's appearance are 1) Does it look according to style? and 2) Do I personally like how it looks? A NEIPA that looks like orange juice--opaque cloudy yellow with a pillowy white head--or an imperial stout, black as pitch with a creamy mocha head, will both get very high ratings for me. Same goes for bright pink or purple fruit beer/fruited sours.
Floaties and poor head retention will lower a beer's scores for me. (Except in the case of goses with the latter; poor head retention is expected, although I will rate a gose's appearance higher if it does actually have some head retention) Same with NEIPAs that look like turkey gravy--grayish and sickly.

 

To me, I consider look as the beer's visual appeal to me, it helps to set my expectations a bit even though in the end it's the least important aspect of the rating. One that I just rated low for look was Bell Oberon. It had big chunks of white yeast floating around like pieces of cheese and absolutely did not look appealing in the least.

 

We should not overlook the Lacing factor, or woeful lack thereof, or the "junk in the trunk" which can be grand in, say, a Belgian Farmhouse, but downright scary in most other styles ...

 

I have not gone below a 3.25 on any beer so far. I won't give pale ales a 4 if its too dark or a brown ale if its too light.
I think grading as a 3 is a bad idea unless you can verbally present a good case as to why you thinks its dead center. Grading a 3 is like a neutral vote e.g. Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly disagree. You're not saying anything with a neutral vote and it statistically can be viewed as a negative vote, even though it's in the middle.

 

So am I a bad person because I couldn't care less what a beer looks like? I'm not judging anybody else, just personally I don't even notice. I only put a number down because I have to. As long as it vaguely resembles beer, I'm good.

 

4 is my default rating for look unless something is particularly stellar or off about the body of the beer.

 

Exactly. If I'm rating an Amber ale and it's looking like a Pilsner then I'm going to knock it on the appearance.

 

Lacing, head, clarity, all factor for me. The biggest however is viscosity. I dock big stouts major points if they swirl like coca-cola.