The most rated/reviewed beer on BA

Likely BAs who review haven't listed everything they have ever drank in a review, especially if say you haven't had one in a long time or members have not been active on the site for very long. It's been years since I've drank a boston lager, and therefore unfair to put a review of it unless I have it again.

It makes for a lot of variance for sure, and we could argue the numbers could be different if people reviewed every beer they've had, but how many people have a notebook keeping track of every beer they had prior to joining this site, or using apps like Untappd? Some yes, but most no.

 

I agree with you. However, I have had Boston Lager, but it was in the 80's. For some reason, I can't quite remember enough to review.

For the last three years, I rate close to every beer that I drink - good, bad, and shudder. I didn't rate a few which weren't in BA - too lazy to enter them.

 

I have tried many hundreds of beers. I have rated 3 on this site. One I like and could drink daily and two sucked. I hope this helps anyone trying to extrapolate.

 

I do tick every beer I have now, but that was also something I started in the last year and a half. Then I go through and rate. I wish I had been following the whole rating scene from when I started drinking since I've missed so much (especially cool retired beers I've had), but oh well. At least I have started now. lol.

 

As someone who only does written reviews as opposed to just an arbitrary number, I find myself only reviewing beers that I can sit down with and experience. Usually this means at my own house at my own pace. Typically with the more widely available beers (SA, SNPA, etc), I am drinking them at a bar or restaurant where my senses are being biased by other factors and my review wouldn't be credible. I just don't buy the big names very often anymore for home consumption when there is a plethora of good local fare available and because of beer trading.

I have a feeling that this is the case for many more than just myself.

 

The trap in going with the number of ratings within a style is that the number of ratings within a style is confounded with distribution footprint of the brewery. So while number of ratings is a reasonable predictor of relative availability and quality, the average rating of a beer within its own style is going to work a bit better as a predictor of "goodness" of the beer.

 

Good Point. I'm usually hit and miss with my ratings. Sometimes I rate, and sometimes I don't.

 

A trap? There can be a trap, there often is. One of the essential things to recognize about any and all statistics is that the whole point is to enable one to decide how to bet their money (or their life) when the answer is not known in advance. Contrary to what most people would like to think (not referring to you here), however, the world is a messy place and there are traps everywhere. Which is why we invented statistical analyses in the first place.

As for 50 ratings vs. 5000 ratings, it is actually not necessarily true that 5000 is "far better" than 50. It turns out that as the number of ratings goes up the chances of estimating an accurate true value from those those ratings also get better, but the improvement isn't linear so 5000 isn't necessarily enough "far better" than 50 to make any practical difference and may in fact be only slightly better but not enough so to matter.

 

As of April 21, 2015, the most reviewed beers were:
1. Founders Breakfast Stout
2. 90 Minute IPA
3. Two Hearted
4. Pliny the Elder
5. Hopslam
6. Sculpin IPA
7. Old Rasputin
8. Ruination IPA

The most reviewed breweries were:
1. Dogfish Head
2. Boston Beer Co.
3. Stone
4. Sierra Nevada
5. Founders
6. Bell's
7. Lagunitas
8. Goose Island

Top reviewed styles
1. Imperial IPA
2. Imperial Stout
3. American Pale Ale
4. Russian Imperial Stout
5. American Porter
6. Saison/Farmhouse
7. American Amber
8. Fruit/Vegetable Beer

Source: BA Magazine May 2015 Issue

 

Correct. At the end of the day, there is still an element of subjectivity which needs to be factors. Also, all of the data points aren't necessarily available. For example, a beer with a high rating with only 50 ratings. It may be an excellent beer with low distribution or it could be a average to good beer because raters may be mostly experienced, live in an area with few options, or work for the brewery!

From my standpoint, I do take into consideration the number of ratings/reviews along with the rating number. The higher number to me tends to me a bigger change that I will like the beer, but on the opposite side, there could be heard mentality. For higher ratings with low reviews, I will check the overall brewery ratings and other factors before making a decision.

In the end, it's all fun and just beer...

 

I've had Bud light and the like, but I haven't rated them. Why? Because I haven't drank any of those beers in years. Doesn't seem fair to rate a beer that isn't right in front of you.

 

? "Better" here refers to the chances of assured quality rather than the beer itself. The chances of assured quality are not necessarily improved much by having 5000 ratings compared to, say, 500. Similarly 500 is not necessarily a very much better number of ratings than 50. It depends.

Apologies for confusion.

 

Not everyone rates every beer. Something run of the mill like Boston Lager is probably not going to get rated by the people that rate a lot of beers, because they figure it's not worth the effort.

 

Ok.