When will Heady Topper be overtaken as #1?

I was not suggesting quantiative was "better" than qualitative, nor did I say that so find another strawman.

There is always a trade off in choosing one approach over the other and by your logic and definition of arbitrary, qualitative is just as arbitrary a choice as quantitative. And qualitative mesurement is neither as simple nor as easy as you portray it to be.

The real issue is not whether one or the other is arbitrary or whether or not one is easier than the other, but what are the questions to be asked/answered and what can be done with the resources available. Each method is suited for dealing with some questions but not others. While both can address a few of the same questions, there are some questions that can be answered using only one method or the other, so when one is engaged in a research program the best approach is to combine the methods and learn from the strenghts each can bring to the table.

In other words, no single study of human behavior is sufficient to answer all questions. So, for an example, an in depth qualitative study of language development in children will answer some very important questions about the continuities in the process by spending resources on upclose and personal study of a few children but it will not tell us how general the findings are. Similarly, a longintudinal study of large numbers of children will give us important data points about the generality of findings across large numbers of children even though it does not paint the whole picture. So at the end of the day we want both to help us more completely understand what goes on in the heads of developing humans as they master such a fundamental set of skills and knowledge as language.

 

I cann't wait til it gets to number 2. Then on my many trips to VT I might be able to find some.

 

Truth is..I could care less if stays at #1or falls..I think most people would agree..it's about enjoying really good beer and Heady is just one of many..kind of a ridiculous topic but made for some interesting comments..think when i get home I'll pop my last Hopslam..Cheers!

 

I said the methods were arbitrary you said they weren't. I explained why I disagreed. No strawman.

Indeed. If it was done qualitatively that would be just as arbitrary. Point being, choosing one or the other is just that to begin with, a choice. It doesn't mean one is superior to the other, hence my original comment (that's it is arbitrary) which you refuted. I happen to think that qualitative methods would do a better job of truly getting at beer drinkers opinions about a beer, that doesn't mean I think it's a superior way to do research. Additionally, I didn't portray qualitative as easy at all. Qualitative is extremely involved, as is quantitative.

Totally agree. Mixed methods would be optimal.

Totally agree again. As I have stated, both have strengths and weakenesses. In my initial response to this I jokingly pointed out some of the the reasons why rankings on this site should be taken with a grain of salt. One of the reasons listed was that the method used is arbitrary. You responded saying it wasn't. I responded to that response. No more, no less.

 

As soon as it becomes available outside of VT it will fall.

 

The methods you claimed were arbitrary are simply not arbitrary. An arbitrary choice is one made by chance, whim or impulse rather than by necesity, reason or principle. The Bros have demonstrated again and again that they have well-motivated reasons for the choices they made in developing the ratings procedures used on this site. You and I may disagree with them or with the appropriateness of the methods or reasons but they were not arbitrary methods.

The strawman you were setting up and attacking was that I claimed one or the other was better. Since no such claim was made what would you call arguing against a claim not made by the person you are responding to?

 

I see your point. The method is not arbitrary, as it serves the question the Bros are asking. However, such an argument seems like determining that a screw driver is best for putting in a nail, because one contractor based his choice on the criteria that he needed a handheld tool that was capable of forcing sharp metal things into wood....Ok, maybe not the same argument...

 

No its not quite the same argument. Closer would be choosing a screwdriver when you've seen it used to put in wood screws but then also trying to use it to put in a nail as well without recognizing there is a hammer out there available for use. But even then the choice might be a poor one but it would not be arbitrary, just ill-informed or made for the wrong reasons. The screwdriver is perfectly fit for one purpose but for the other purpose.

Where most of the problems of misinterpretation on this site arise is because so many people insist on assigning value to the numbers they don't have or where anyone draws conclusions not supported by the numbers.

 

Well said. Indeed that first misinterpretation of assigning value the numbers don't have, can be a frustrating one.

 

Overall ratings should be an overriding factor....HT has been tasted by most, KBBS is so rare I almost don't want to try it....but just because of its minuscul number of ratings, should not be considered "number 1"... Come on!

 

You can trust this as well. This is a problem that will never cease to bother you but which will also be out there for the rest of your professional life.

 

How many ratings should be required, and why that number?

 

That would have to be averaged.... An algorithm developed to compare with other beers and factored in.... Heady has what...10,000 ratings.....what does KBBS have..... 400?

 

how can 400 ratings compare to over 10,000? That must be considered....

 

Approximately those numbers for both. But the algorithm to compare other beers and factor in the numbers of ratings has already been developed and is in use. The Bros describe it at the bottom of the page on each list, including the numbers of ratings, etc.

 

For example.... If a beer gets a certain measure, say 100 ratings of a certain level, then a certain metric is attached to that measurement......this is actually a really simple statistical equation that is used all the time by computers to compare things that aren't necesarily quantifiable in the same parameters.....

 

How was Nielson able to predict the viewing habits of the US TV audiences from about 1000 ratings representing a population of about 300 million?

 

Where is that?

 

Then you'll want to have this chat with the folks who developed the algorithm currently in use by the computer here.

 

Go to the 250 list. Scroll all the way down to the bottom of the list. Its there. All the lists have comparable information at the bottom of their respective pages.