Thoughts on the latest updates? Top 250, etc.

Discussion in 'BeerAdvocate Talk' started by julielynndubee, Jul 19, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. julielynndubee

    julielynndubee Aspirant (285) Dec 21, 2013 Virginia

    So it appears those recalculations based on reviews only have taken effect and there were some big changes to the Top 250, as well as the other Top lists. Its weird not to see Heady atop the list.

    Thoughts?
     
    Greywulfken and DaverCS like this.
  2. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,579) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Moderator Fest Crew

  3. WesMantooth

    WesMantooth Poo-Bah (2,618) Jan 8, 2014 Ohio
    Trader

    So the top 250 is now based only on reviews? Not sure I agree with that. There are a lot of beers that I rated without reviewing on that list that I would love to go back and include some notes for, but likely won't have the opportunity.

    I'm sure it is probably an attempt to weed out some disingenuous 5's and to encourage reviews, but it would be nice if mine counted. Oh well... not that big of a deal either way. The page should probably be changed to "As reviewed by our users" instead of rated though.
     
    MrDave, jhartley, biggumby and 11 others like this.
  4. mikevanatta

    mikevanatta Initiate (0) Sep 29, 2014 Minnesota

    The #4 beer on that list only has one review. Is there any plan to require a minimum number of reviews in order to make the top lists?
     
  5. julielynndubee

    julielynndubee Aspirant (285) Dec 21, 2013 Virginia

  6. smithj4

    smithj4 Poo-Bah (2,356) Jan 9, 2010 New York
    Society

    I have to say that I think the counting of only full reviews and not the quick ratings for averages and scores is a big mistake. I have been a user of beer advocate for many years, and really appreciate it, not only for its ability to keep track of what I have had, but to look up new beers and see what their average ratings and scores are while I'm out at a bar or store buying beer.

    This basically amounts to ignoring probably 80% or more of the ratings data for all beers, and eliminates the averages and scores for a lot of beers that didn't have a lot of reviews but might have had many ratings. Only popular beers or beers that have been around a long time will have meaningful averages and scores now, many smaller, newer and local only beers will be completely left out.

    I understand the reason is to promote more quality over quantity, but when doing statistical measures, it is the quantity that matters the most, not the quality. Larger sample sizes actually produces a better overall statistical average, which means a more meaningful, higher quality final result, more so than trying to increase the quality of a smaller sample size. I really hope this decision is reconsidered and this large volume of quick ratings data is not just ignored and thrown out. It should be included in some form, maybe with a smaller weight than the full reviews, but please don't just completely throw out all this useful data.
     
  7. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,579) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Moderator Fest Crew

    It's where site comments and feedback is posted, hence the "Comment" prefix.
     
    1Sundown2C and WesMantooth like this.
  8. julielynndubee

    julielynndubee Aspirant (285) Dec 21, 2013 Virginia

    My bad, thanks.
     
  9. wesbray

    wesbray Aspirant (294) Feb 29, 2012 Alberta (Canada)

  10. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,579) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Moderator Fest Crew

    Not sure where you're seeing one review, but scroll down and read the bottom of the page.

    How the lists work hasn't changed.
     
  11. mikevanatta

    mikevanatta Initiate (0) Sep 29, 2014 Minnesota

    When viewing the Top 250 List, I click on Toppling Goliath HOPSMACK! and I see 112 ratings and 1 review. Since the rAvg is derived solely from the reviews now, that one review (which is a 4.92) has sky rocketed that beer up the list to the number 4 spot. Am I looking at this all wrong?
     
  12. OrangeMen

    OrangeMen Disciple (310) Jan 26, 2014 New York

    westy 12 really gets the boost back up to where it once was. im sure some beers got hit harder than others, but i agree with the overall concept that the alstrom brothers are explaining. lets let the dedicated reviewers decide the ratings...not the tickers.
     
  13. 1Sundown2C

    1Sundown2C Devotee (451) Jan 13, 2012 New York

    I do not prefer this new system. I appreciate the weight that real reviews go into scoring a beer but there are too many new, world class beers now missing from the "Top" lists.
     
  14. wesbray

    wesbray Aspirant (294) Feb 29, 2012 Alberta (Canada)

    I like the new system. Despite the fact that I don't review, I would rather take the opinion of those who took the time to think about the beer and critique it than those who simply "ticked" it.

    Examples?
     
    ONovoMexicano and R3ason like this.
  15. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,579) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Moderator Fest Crew

    But it isn't on the Top 250, because it only has 1 review. It doesn't have 112 ratings anymore either. It has 112 Hads.

    This is a great example of the update at work.
     
    Ruger likes this.
  16. OrangeMen

    OrangeMen Disciple (310) Jan 26, 2014 New York

    people will probably have problems with the toppling goliath coffee stouts plumeting
     
    ONovoMexicano and gcamparone like this.
  17. 1Sundown2C

    1Sundown2C Devotee (451) Jan 13, 2012 New York

    Any of the top lists by style. New beers simply haven't had the time to accrue enough reviews to appear on these lists i.e. Tree House Good Morning not listed as a Top American Imperial Stout. I support the idea but there needs to be a middle ground.
     
    John_Beeryman and jrnyc like this.
  18. mikevanatta

    mikevanatta Initiate (0) Sep 29, 2014 Minnesota

    Maybe this is where we are seeing different things. When I launch the Top 250, it shows up at number 4. Is it not there when you look?
     
  19. Scott17Taylor

    Scott17Taylor Meyvn (1,358) Oct 28, 2013 Iowa
    Trader

    I like the new system a lot. It makes it so if you're not willing to take the time to review the beer your opinion doesn't count. These newer beers will find their way into the list, but it'll take people truly reviewing the, higher than the beers that are already there.
     
    jmdrpi, drtth and DaverCS like this.
  20. 1Sundown2C

    1Sundown2C Devotee (451) Jan 13, 2012 New York

    Plummeting is one thing I can deal with. When a beer is missing entirely I have an issue. Without staying on the forums all day it'll be much harder to see what newer, less reviewed but still very highly rated beers are out there worth seeking out, trading for, etc.
     
    jtladner, Kevinpitts and mrn1ceguy like this.
  21. Beervana

    Beervana Zealot (593) Apr 15, 2014 British Columbia (Canada)

    The first thing I noticed is that everything from De Garde is gone.

    I'm not a huge fan of the change, the rAvg's all seem to be generally the same as they were before purging the ticks (meaning there was likely very little bias in them) but they've now cut their sample size dramatically. That certainly doesn't help the statistical significance of the list..
     
  22. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,579) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Moderator Fest Crew

    Nope. Try doing a hard reload of the page. My guess is that your browser is doing some crazy page caching.
     
    R3ason likes this.
  23. Scott17Taylor

    Scott17Taylor Meyvn (1,358) Oct 28, 2013 Iowa
    Trader

    I am from Iowa and can get these when they're released. That being said anytime beers that are easier to have access to get higher on the list it's better for the beer community as a whole.
     
    cjgiant likes this.
  24. wesbray

    wesbray Aspirant (294) Feb 29, 2012 Alberta (Canada)

    As it should be. To my mind, the hype plays a big factor in these new releases, so it should take time before a brand new beer becomes part of the list.
     
    cjgiant likes this.
  25. wesbray

    wesbray Aspirant (294) Feb 29, 2012 Alberta (Canada)

    CBS is there for me.
     
  26. OrangeMen

    OrangeMen Disciple (310) Jan 26, 2014 New York

    I hear ya, but i bet whatever system you use the rare beers will float to the top. Now i know TG beers are a whole different level of hard to get....but in the top 4 you still have

    Pliny Younger- pretty much regional draft release
    Heady- regional release
    Westy- pshhh, who knows when it will come back to US
    CBS- draft only release as of now....
     
  27. 1Sundown2C

    1Sundown2C Devotee (451) Jan 13, 2012 New York

    Yes, because Choklat Oranj is a better example of the style than Good Morning. Let's be honest, only those beers which are prevelant and receive greater distribution will be reflected.
     
    julielynndubee likes this.
  28. wesbray

    wesbray Aspirant (294) Feb 29, 2012 Alberta (Canada)

    So you're saying a beer released yesterday with 10 5.00 reviews should top the list?
     
    FarmerTed likes this.
  29. jrnyc

    jrnyc Meyvn (1,096) Mar 21, 2010 New York
    Trader

    I agree with this, the recent trend of people not doing reviews and just providing a score will hurt the newer beers that predominantly have a small % of reviews compared to ratings.
     
  30. 1Sundown2C

    1Sundown2C Devotee (451) Jan 13, 2012 New York

    Not sure how you derived this from my posts. There needs to be a greater balance. The Top 250 list basically just became another Beers of Fame. I preferred the previous distinction.
     
    hambone85, cjgiant, chippo33 and 3 others like this.
  31. Beervana

    Beervana Zealot (593) Apr 15, 2014 British Columbia (Canada)

    If the goal is for the reviews have a greater affect on the ratings, I think the solution isn't to remove the hads from the calculation completely, just simply weight them less. I'd do a weighted function where a review is worth 2x what a had is. That way you don't drastically decrease your sample size but the reviews do have more weight in the calculation. Shouldn't be too difficult to implement I'd assume.

    Cheers again to you Todd for trying to make the website function even better than it already does!
     
    Hypersomnia, kp29, jtladner and 6 others like this.
  32. jrnyc

    jrnyc Meyvn (1,096) Mar 21, 2010 New York
    Trader

    This thread should not be buried in this forum, this is a major change and should be in one of the more mainstream forums for all changes to see.

    This is a major change to the site, if the goal is for people to know about these change and encourage more reviews, the more eyeballs see this the better.
     
    PhillyRiver, cfh64, biggumby and 12 others like this.
  33. mrn1ceguy

    mrn1ceguy Meyvn (1,087) Oct 5, 2012 Illinois
    Trader

    My problem is that previously, the top 250 was suppose to be the best beers out there while the beers of fame list were the best beers that have established themselves or somewhat easier to get. Now, both list are heavily filled with the more established beers and the newer ones (like Tree House Good Morning, Nuthulu, anything De Garde, ...) are left off. So when the beers at the bottom of the top 250 are very blah, it makes the list less relevant. Now the top new beers list has a better selection of beers, but because of the drastically reduced numbers, the stats integrity of the top new list is terrible (#3 and #7 beer have 11 reviews, how is that helpful to anyone?).

    BA was my favorite site because I loved the top 250 list, an honest pro-rated list of the best beers currently out. Any beer needed a good 90-100 beers to make it on the list, anything retired was removed, and all the best beers bubbled on to and up the list. Pretty much nearly every beer on the list was gold. Now, a lot of the beers on the list below 150 I find myself rating in the mid to low 3s and not beers I would recommend to people. Not what I call a set of top 250 beers.
     
    cfh64, biggumby, wreck and 8 others like this.
  34. Scott17Taylor

    Scott17Taylor Meyvn (1,358) Oct 28, 2013 Iowa
    Trader

    Yes the top few are still incredibly limited, but top to bottom the new top 250 is way more accessible.
     
  35. 1Sundown2C

    1Sundown2C Devotee (451) Jan 13, 2012 New York

    The Too 250 beers is not about accessibility. It's about the Top 250 beers. This is the problem many of us are having. If anything, the Beers of Fame was always a good reference for attainable beers.
     
    Beer4B, Scott17Taylor and Todd like this.
  36. mrn1ceguy

    mrn1ceguy Meyvn (1,087) Oct 5, 2012 Illinois
    Trader

    More accessible, but way worse beers. I would say it would be more fair to list some of the best IPAs on the list like Trillium's Artaic and Upper Case over mediocre but accessible beers like FSW Union Jack and Wookey Jack. If I want to know more about the FSW beers, they are on the beers of fame list.
     
  37. wesbray

    wesbray Aspirant (294) Feb 29, 2012 Alberta (Canada)

    Alternatively, were they originally rated so highly due to the rareness?
     
  38. OrangeMen

    OrangeMen Disciple (310) Jan 26, 2014 New York

    If a beer gets good enough ratings it will be on the list. If a brewery is so damn small they cant get their beer out to enough people to get enough reviews....then too freakin bad. Do we really want 100 people in the new england region deciding what the best IPA is just because they are the only ones who can get it?
     
    cjgiant, sjjn, maltmaster420 and 3 others like this.
  39. Scott17Taylor

    Scott17Taylor Meyvn (1,358) Oct 28, 2013 Iowa
    Trader

    I agree it's about the best I'm just saying with the new system the top 250 has more accessible beers rising. A lot of the other limited beers might have gotten higher ratings because they are harder to get. The new system has definitely changed the top 250 but out of all the beers I've had off of it I can't say too many of them weren't great beers.
     
    DaverCS likes this.
  40. jrnyc

    jrnyc Meyvn (1,096) Mar 21, 2010 New York
    Trader

    Recent trend of ratings instead of reviews will have negative impact on new breweries unless people start reviewing again.
     
    cfh64, tommyz and HeadyTheElder like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.