Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'BeerAdvocate Talk' started by Longhorn08, Oct 2, 2020.
" It doesn't really live up to the hype "
Common occurrence for pasty stouts and NE IPA.
My 2 cents worth is, when reviewing a beer the representation of that particular style should be front and center. Calling a beer 2.5 across the board tells me the person that tried it isn't familiar with that type of beer and doesn't know what to look for in that style.
I've seen it where some one doesn't like a particular style, say a Pilsner, and has one then rates it down. I myself have gotten better at reviewing styles I don't drink often just by understanding what it is I'm suppose to look for. The review system and NB Weekend are really helpful. There are a ton of excellent BA's that do a really great job of reviewing and I tend to read their reviews and opinions when I want to try something new. Cheers.
Why would that feel phony?
You gave both your personal and objective opnions.
I'm not really sure. I'm clearly not good at this whole reviewing thing.
I guess it feels phony to me because I'm letting the objective opinion dictate the score. So basically I'll have tons of 4's for beers I don't enjoy.
I understand what you're saying, but keep in mind that your personal enjoyment is subjective. For me, there are a lot of beers I've rated in the 3.5 to 3.75 range which isn't a great rating that I really enjoy drinking and would drink on a regular basis. There are also lots of beers I have rated very highly because they were excellent, but I wouldn't want to drink them all that much.
I understand what you mean and I use the Overall section to express that.
Personally I don't care for hoppy beers, but I will occasionally have one just to see if my tastes have changed or on a recommendation I trust.
On the fee times I've reviewed those beers I try to leave my personal opinion out of the taste, smell, etc and describe them as they are.
Overall usually begins: “I didn't care for this beer, but... ”
I hear what you're saying. However, you've been a member since 2012, and I see that you've experienced (rated/reviewed) almost 2,400 beers so maybe you're drinking too many beers just to rate/review them. If you haven't learned to like certain styles by now, I'd quit drinking them. You're into this beer thing for the enjoyment, so keep that in mind. Drink a new style a few times, rate/review it as best as you can, then move on if you don't like the style.
I think I do that, but I could be misunderstanding. If so I apologise.
I had one chile beer. It was Stone's Punishment, and to date it's the lowest rating I've ever given. So I have no intention of trying another one.
The vast majority of my ratings are IPA's, stouts, and saisons, which are my favorite styles and I think I have a good idea of what constitutes a good representation of each style. Not an expert at all, but I've had enough to know what's good and what isn't.
Thank you for all the thoughts here. I'm learning a lot, or at least trying to.
I have a couple buddies who rarely give above a 3 on Untappd.
Here’s my scale:
5 - Exceptional
4 - Great
3 - Good
2 - Drinkable
1 - Undrinkable
Interesting scale for sure. I would suggest to your buddies who rarely give above a 3 to find some better beers though! I very rarely give a 3 or below but on the other hand I only buy beer that I think I am going to enjoy. Only on a handful of occasions have I ever bought a beer that sounded good to me but ended up being really bad. Assuming 3 = 60% than it is a D- and anything below 3 is an F. Obviously all this scoring stuff is subjective though.
I like it better from the can. (Hangs head in shame).
I’m in with that with .5 fractions included. Most good beers for me are in that 4 range, I usually specifically target certain beers to begin with so my rating on what I actually might be a little higher. 3 is dull average, eh, maybe worth buying. The problem here is do you use this scale as an enjoy o meter, or by style. In this system that’s strictly looks by drinking experience, I rate to enjoyment. Other than that I’m not much of a rater guy.
There is no shame it that.
Agreed with everything you said. As far as how I use the scale, it’s “enjoy o meter” unfortunately. You kind of have to go that route if you are basing your ratings on if you’ll buy the beer again.
But since the beer in that discussion was Heady Topper, you've unintentionally exposed an issue with the idea of "rating to style." In the past, it was probably classified on BA as a Double IPA. Today it is classified here as a NEIPA. Should someone have a different score for the beer now vs then? Has the brewer's intention changed? Has the beer? (I'm sure some beers have.) That particular brewer wouldn't group that beer with the beers that embodied the style it is currently categorized as.
Don't say that. From reading this thread, there's nothing wrong with your attitude or approach.
This is really the question.
When I review I always look to what the brewery says he's offering. If it's been listed in another category, I question that in my review and make it clear that I'm reviewing to the brewer's intent.
As to the Heady Topper, I'm not familiar with the beer and wasn't directly pointing to it as a part of my response.
3 pages back, slow day today?
It's amazing to me how little of that I see from others.
Ha. Yeah. I'm hitting the "BA Talk" section this morning.
Perhaps not so much an issue with rating to style; rather an issue with a newly-created but shallowly interpreted style resulting in mis-classified beers.
You know the beer styles listed in the database here are "crowd sourced". So, if a beer is mis-classified, that is on us.
If something seems off to me on how the BA database has a beer classified, then I check other sources (brewer, other beer-centric sites, etc.) and make up my own mind. If the brewer has the beer called something else, I'll submit an edit request to the database, along with a link to the brewer's description.
When the NEIPA style was added, there was a whirlwind that went through the beer database that went something like this: Is that IPA hazy? Yes - re-categorize it as NEIPA.
Somehow, haze was the only characteristic of the new style that mattered. I've commented on this before, and even exchanged emails with one brewer (who agreed with me that his beer was not a NEIPA; but he did not give me leave to make that public... I suspect it was because he liked the increased sales that came about as a result of people chasing the haze, but that is just the cynic in me...)
It seems to me the thread Brewer’s Perspective: West Coast Haze approaches this same issue from a different perspective.
Rating to style is for competitions, rating by what I like and will buy again are two separate things, I agree there.
So, if you buy an Imperial Stout and the beer really drinks more like an Oatmeal Stout (including ABV and all characteristics), you aren't going to be disappointed that you didn't get the IS you wanted?
My rating would reflect it.
I try to follow the apparent intent of the instructions on this site for numerical rating; that is, rate to the style definition. I use the text portion of my review to describe my personal experience with the beer with regard to how much I like it or not. If my personal preference is different from the style definition I state it. Those comments come in handy when i go back through through the records of the beers I have reviewed. If I am not overly familiar with a style I either study up on it using various sources or I don't rate the beer. Nothing says you have to rate everything you drink. In fact, when looking at the numbers of beers that some people are rating in the matter of a couple days, I seriously doubt their ability to discern the nuances of the beers....or be a functioning human for that matter; seems like little more than a race to see who can rate the most sometimes.
Lots of people seem to store up a number of reviews and them put them all in at once
That’s why you look at overall ratings. If anyone rates Heady 3 - 3.5 I’d just throw it out, I’ve had it enough to know better. Maybe it’s just not his thing.
Exactly. Hard to be fair if you hate the style. I don’t rate all that much, certainly not if it’s a style I’m iffy on.
I buy on what a like to drink; Period. I don’t care what it scores if I like it. I don’t buy by score by style, I don’t care. I buy what I like. So enjoyment is goal #1.
That's great if you are always buying what you have already had in the past. When I go to the store to get a beer I have not tried yet, and am faced with various options in a preferred style I want to know how those options stack up against the benchmark for the style. I don't care a bit about someone's personal assessment of whether it is "good" compared to their completely undefined personal taste preference that bears little resemblance to the style definition. If someone doesn't like a style or knows nothing about the style, please do us all a favor and don't rate the beer.
Your right, it’s unfair it rate a style that you don’t like or your not familiar with, it helps no one. I do pay attention to certain BAs opinions, so I pick my expert, but generally I buy new beers by brewery with a solid reputation on quality in a style I like.