Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Announcements' started by Todd, Jan 10, 2013.
Nevermind, been addressed.
Jason and Todd, thank you for putting up with our silly idiosyncrasies. "This doesn't work with my app" and "My Ipad doesn't recognize this", and "You should really change this," "RateBeer is not like this." I understand this is today's retail environment. If you don't like something, complain. People, the bottom line is: you can't please everybody. Just because you don't like something does'nt mean the brothers should change it for you. I know you are just trying to help, but you cant always get what you want, so deal with it. I have gotten so much knowledge from this site and the mags-you have too so appreciate it. Not kissing the bros. arse, just that some of these posts from spoiled, self-entitled members piss me off. Rant over- cheers!
Like the changes. In particular the minimum 250 characters review. I like to read reviews that are more thought out and descriptive as opposed to the quick, general ones that some people write to "just get another review" ticked.
Thanks for all you guys do!!!
Is the plan still to email those duplicate reviews that were deleted from peoples accounts? I read that somewhere and haven't seen anything since. Thank you!
Absolutely. But why start at 1 instead of zero?
And can we do something to make the 0-100 score look like it is tied in some fashion to the actual review number? Why is one beer at 4.16 a 94 and another at 4.11 an 87? The two numbers seem to have absolutely no relationship to each other, very confusing.
I’m afraid the new 250 character min. review rule is prompting some lazy Ba members to plagiarize other respectable member's reviews. This has happened to me and could really start to discredit the site.
It's not new. It's been in place the good part of a decade.
Please report any abuse; just send us a note w/ a link.
Just my 2 cents. I kind of enjoyed the ability to see how many of my beers were from different states / breweries / types. I found it interesting to see the beers that I focused on and also the areas that I hadn't really given a chance to. I also noticed that the karma ratings are gone. I'm sure there are very good reasons. I do miss the social aspect of that though (although I am a complete newbie.) Regardless, keep up the good work and thanks!
Would it be possible to add a field for the price paid per ounce or per bottle? With some of the whales on here, it's hard to determine the cost if one has never seen one on a shelf.
Eclipses, for example, would rate higher if the cost was $0.45/oz ($10/22 oz) rather than $1.36/oz ($30/22 oz). In my opinion, at least.
Why would you rate the beer differently based on its price? It makes sense to consider the price when you're looking at buying/trading/whatever, but it should be completely orthogonal to the rating.
I like to use the Hads for my own personal records of beers that I've had. I don't write full reviews because everybody else has said what I want to say and probably said it more articulately. I don't want to be reported for abusing the Hads by not writing full reviews. Any way that a user could have the option of their Hads counting towards the overall score or not? A "count toward overall score" box on a users Had page that could be checked or unchecked? I'm not worried about mine counting since I'm using it for my own records like I said. Perhaps I'll just make an Excell spreadsheet...
I might let price impact the Overall rating by a very slight amount (.25 at most), but mostly because I've grandfathered my evaluation of that part of the score from when it was called 'Drinkablity'. Price does affect 'drinkability' in so far as conspicuously out-of-line pricing deters me from having multiple glasses/bottles. As the categories are constructed now though it shouldn't really be relevant.
Mostly, I just mention value at the tail end of the review without it affecting the score; comments like "solid IPA, but I could buy a sixer of Two-Hearted for the same price as this bomber", "kudos to Haymarket for their linear pricing of samples", or "extremely presumptuous of this brewery to think this beer is worth >$1/oz". Prices vary a lot by locale - I'm sure my local beers are as overpriced in Denmark as Danish beers are overpriced here.
Thanks for the check off to block "hads" from the display, as I don't find them all that useful and they use up viewing page real estate. Just a quick implementation note: after entering a review and being returned to the product page, the check off choice is no longer in effect and both reviews and hads are displayed. It always stays sticky between log ins, but always reverts to "hads displayed" after entering a review.
Is it that hard to decide whether you want to give a Had beer a score of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5?
Gotta say I enjoyed these aspects, as well. I would also ask that there be some indication in the personal listings of the states &/or country for quick reference.
So I'll throw this out there again at the risk of sounding like a broken record...still planning on emailing out the old reviews you guys deleted?
Yes, but it's not a priority and we don't have an ETA.
My g/f told me I ought to back up all my BA reviews offline. I used to scoff, but after a bunch of mine were culled in the "great duplicate purge" a while back, I get the wisdom of it.
Still, it's not a priority and I don't have an ETA. If I lose all my reviews, oh, well... I still drank the beer.