The more beers I review, the less critical my ratings seem.

Your deductions are correct. I'm only 20 reviews away from 1000 and not only have I become more generous with my scoring but I also have become less in-depth with my analyses. My reviews used to be paragraphs for each section, now they're just a sentence or two for each.

 

It's no secret that the more good beer you consume over the long term, the more easy-going in general you become.
Relax, don't worry, have a homebrew.

 

Yeah man, I'm 2k+, and I have found the same thing. I agree that the palate becomes more rounded, but I also believe that as you taste more brews you become a better judge of beers before you even try them. There becomes a selectiveness that I think we all develop alongside our palates, and it allows us the ability to avoid the possible turds, whereas when we started it was possible to just try to up the numbers. Also, I (optimistically) believe that brewers, on the whole, are improving, which would also explain the uptick in ratings. Regardless, ratings are subjective, so don't be too hard on yourself in these matters. Cheers!

 

Age and experience equals wisdom...and higher cholesterol.

 

That's strange because I almost feel the opposite after 1000 reviews. The most noticeable is that I've become very finicky about my hoppy beers. I used to really enjoy Founders Centennial and now I find it too malt driven for me. Double Trouble is not enough fruit forward and too bitterness driven.

I've started to give beers lower ratings than before because of the fact I've tried so many beers, I start gauging things in perspective, as in what I used to give a 95 on BA might now be a 92.

Then again, from beginning to now, I still find hefeweizens and witbier slightly bland (even though I spent my early drinking years loving them). I still dislike that woody, earthy flavor in many American Barleywines. Even then, I wouldn't say I dislike those styles.

 

You would think over time the opposite would happen.

 

I have started to give short reviews and I am no where near that many reviews. To me it just seems like it is not worth to put in the effort to write a paragraph where it will be buried over time by other reviews. I normally just check the scores and read 1 or 2 reviews anyway, I don't take the time to go page to page.

 

As long as you're legitimately putting thought into reviews. There are some that are very poorly done regardless of subjectivity. You have to wonder what someone's thought process is when they clearly say one thing and rate another. "This beer smells pretty good. The taste isn't bad. It's kind of flat but not too much. 5/5"

 

Your experience makes sense to me, though I haven't reviewed or ticked anywhere near 1000 brews. To me, it just seems like you're a true beer lover and appreciate beer in all of it's many forms. I think that's pretty awesome.

It seems that many folks review beer styles that they don't even enjoy in the first place, which is pretty damn pointless if you ask me. I'd think that someone in your position would actually be creating more fair and valuable reviews as long as you're not letting your love of beer completely cloud your ability to be critical and objective.

 

Although I don't do a lot a detailed reviews I know that as time has gone on I have become more forgiving of beers in some ways in less forgiving in other ways, so I think it's a bit of a wash.

 

I think it can be artful and well done both ways. The long and very detailed review or a shorter one paragraph. I am finding that I want to do shorter reviews the more I drink and once I had to actually try again to meet the 250 word requirement. =)

 

It's not pointless when you consider ratings are really supposed to be done against the style. Not strictly personal preference.

Example: often you see people here say the Bro's are crazy when they give an AAL a decent rating. The reality is they may not love the beer, or choose to drink it ever again. But stacked up against it's style peers, it deserves a good rating.

Many people here don't even bother to read the beer 101, or beer style guides etc etc... they just base their ratings 100% on whether the beer was pleasing to their palate, or not.

"Keep style in mind
Say you don't like light beers. We suggest that you do one of two things: 1) don't review them if you know you already don't like them - your opinion will be tainted. 2) Review with an open mind and for what the beer is trying to be, not what you think the beer should be or pit it against the kick-ass India Pale Ale that you had earlier. It's also important to note that a beery character that you might not like, could be "to style," and shouldn't be deemed a flaw. Example: buttery notes (diacetyl) in a Scotch Ale or ESB, the vinegary sourness in a Lambic, or the intense smokiness in a Rauchbier."

 

I was just thinking this exact thing the other day. I felt that I was constantly being too generous and found myself going back and questioning many of my previous reviews.

I think it also has to do with my drinking and being more critical of what I want to drink rather than just filling my beer hole with literally anything, good and bad. Maybe you've just been drinking better beer from better breweries since you know what to look for...?

 

I haven't reviewed every beer I've had but my count is well over 1,000 by now.

I think what happens is after a while a lot of your pretenses kind of fall away and you just learn to appreciate beer for what it is rather than what it isn't.

Hell right now my favorite beer to drink is New Belgium Snapshot, rocking an out of this world 79 on this site. But man is it delicious.

Five years ago I would have said it's too simple instead of just loving it for the clean flavors followed up with some light tartness, perfect for summer.

 

You just reinforced my point of the pointlessness that is reviewing a style that you already know you don't enjoy. Again, if you can't rate it to style and let your personal preferences dominate, then your review is worthless to others who might like the style ("tainted").

For instance, I don't rate AAL's because I don't like them: my bias would taint a review of a potentially "great" AAL so it is best to refrain. A man has got to know his limits.

 

A couple other possible factors come to mind. One, you may be self-selecting better beer or beers more in line with your taste now. The higher ratings over time may also be similar to the phenomenon of "score creep" slam poets talk about, where judges start out scoring conservatively at the beginning of the slam but they tend to go up as the night goes on.

Looking over my history, I have a fairly stable pattern of rating a lot of beers higher than average while rating BA favorites lower than average (like Storm King, Pliny, Backwoods Bastard). Take that status quo!

 

Your ratings/reviews are probably becoming more generous due to the fact that you are focusing your time drinking quality beers that YOU enjoy. Your palate is refined.