Update: https://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/updates-to-the-top-rated-beers-part-two.619559/
Yes. If I found out that something was wrong with the entry, I could always use the suggest an edit function.
Update: I've reverted the text range to what it was prior to switching to 1-5. https://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/beeradvocate-ratings-explained.184726/
I don't consider myself to be an exceptionally longtime member, but I've seen so many gosh-darn changes to the ratings system it's almost hard to take it seriously anymore. I guess I look at it and think, "meh, it'll be different next year" I do miss the overall ratings for beers with under 10 reviews though. Seeing a "0" is a little weird. Also might throw occasional site crawlers off thinking the beer was worse than toilet water or something...
How many people are going to go back after five years and re-review EVERY SINGLE beer they've reviewed on this site? Because a beer legitimately might change, for many reasons I've already stated. Brewer's leave, recipes change, breweries scale up which causes changes...etc. For example, the recipe for Prima Pils ACTUALLY changed recently...Victory announced this. The recipe for Sam Summer JUST changed...again, the brewery announced this. Those old reviews are now actually for a different beer under the same name. Wow, I think you just set the record for most quotes in a post! Also, see @hopley , the sky isn't falling, the initial changes weren't permanent. This assumes everyone on Untappd is on Beeradvocate. Many people aren't. I've been here since 2004. I understand this sentiment, and I've felt the same way at times, but overall it's a good thing in my opinion.
Thanks for changing that, however, I noticed that if a beer is retired, that status will still show up in the notes instead of the availability field, which will still show the original availability for the beer. My thought is that the retired status should probably appear in the availability field instead.
Then rather than delete (or, remove from calculations) the old reviews, the right thing to do is to suggest an edit to the beer to create a separate entry. See, for example: https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/417/248380/ https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/417/399686/ Well, it might if I was responding on Untapped (hint: I wasn't! )
Agreed. We're displaying no BA Score as "n/a" now, which ties into the text stating that more ratings are needed.
@Todd ... too lazy to go back and "like" all of your recent posts, but thanks! IMO, the recent changes as a whole are an improvement.
Ah, fair enough. Still wouldn't address the other changes I mentioned. Another example is locally, the head brewer at John Harvard's in Framingham left to start his own brewery. The IPA apparently (just going off of what others have said) took a nose dive after that. But, I think at this point I'll just agree to disagree about kicking out old reviews. Ohh, you weren't?! I know, that wasn't my point, and I likely did a poor job of explaining it. I just meant more people are on Untappd, so while it's nice one person saw a new beer on Untappd that's a member here, there's many many more that won't add their reviews on here because they're not members.
No less valid to you personally. That review reflects your opinion at that time and, yes, it can be very useful for you, for data analysis, and to check consistency (useful for beers with yearly “vintages”). Realistically though, just how useful is a ten year old review to someone wanting to see if a particular beer is worth buying this afternoon? I'm not advocating getting rid of our hiding older ratings and reviews, just not including those numbers when a calculating a beer's current score.
Yes, I am saying that and I'm fully aware that my reviews, posts, and knowledge are miniscule compared to some of the people here. A new beer will get a hype boost, but that will tend to level out after the hype is over and realistic reviews start getting averaged in, eventually those hype reviews will age out. When a five year old 4.0 ages out it gets replaced by a new 4.0 (if that's what the beer still deserves). If you're concerned that your score isn't included, just buy one every few years and do a one line edit. If, for some reason, you're unable to buy that beer again how do you know it still deserves the score you gave (I grant that it may still merit that score, but how do you know)? I'm not suggesting that the reviews be deleted, they would still be there for anyone who is interested, just that the old scores not be included in current rankings. If I'm making a flawed argument please point out where my error is. You obviously see problems with this that I don't. So where is the harm in requiring a rating to be relatively current in order to be used in calculating current rankings?
There are a few styles that I just don't care for that's why I just don't rate them. I guess it comes down to how you see the reviews & ratings. Are they a way to keep track of whether or not you personally liked or disliked a particular beer, or are they a way to describe for others whether or not a beer is a good example of a particular style.
Yes, I agree that what a person tastes and reports is what a person tastes and reports. That report should never be deleted or hidden. I'm asking if the score based on that taste and report years ago is still relevant to a ranking today? If a person doesn't update their review (“still just as good as it was three years ago”) every few years the score ages out of consideration in the rankings. The review and score doesn't get deleted or hidden, just no longer used in current rankings.
Just want to comment that the top 250 appears to be a similar algorithm as it was before it was changed a few months back. I was working with two buddies to try tackle the entire list and after 2 years and a lot of $$$, one of us was at ~215, the other at 243, and I was at 235. We gave up and disbanded when you guys changed the algorithm and we all lost 20-30 beers each. I knew of at least 3 other people on the same mission who quit too. I guess the point is that "the list" isn't the only thing affected when you change the algorithm. Perhaps we'll get back into our mission and hope nothing changes too drastically in the near future.
Correct. Based on feedback from a while back, it's been reverted to an algorithm that's similar to how it was prior to the update that you're referring to.
Probably close to zero, all that I'm suggesting is that making it an option to add one counted score every two years (for instance, there could be a better limit) for any individual beer would allow people who are inclined to revisit beers to add their new assessment of the beer without eliminating their original assessment. This would avoid the problems of discounting older reviews while allowing committed raters to add updated impressions that take into account any changes in the beer or it's relative appeal in the context of the changing market
We all have our reasons the be on BA. Looks like the dinosaur BA has become is trying to stay up to date with all the beer tracking apps that a majority of people have become accustomed to and prefer.
So now I'm buying beer solely for the purpose of feeling obligated to update my review every few years so it doesn't become irrelevant? Come on now.
I love it however,please change member ratings to the same system. It's confusing and a bit ambiguous to look at two types of ratings. I'm guessing you would simply double our rating and add a decimal point. For example a 4.5 rating would become a 90. Thoughts?
They could arithmetically make the user's rating scale a 100 point system, but that would not equate to their 100 point rating. As @Todd has said, the 100 point system is not an arithmetic mean, whereas the average rating is.
Quick thing: when I submit a review, my score is not immediately displayed. Looks a bit buggy in that it tells me my rDev, but the score area is blank. See pic: However, once I refresh the page, there's my score in all its glory: I recall old BA always being a little buggy when you submit a review before you refresh the page, but at least it showed me my score right away. This should be far from the top of any priority list, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
