Which BA SCORE scale would you prefer: 1-5 or 1-100?

Discussion in 'BeerAdvocate Talk' started by Todd, Jan 20, 2018.


Which BA SCORE scale would you prefer: 1-5 or 1-100?

Poll closed Jul 19, 2018.
  1. 1-5

    898 vote(s)
  2. 1-100

    1,152 vote(s)
  1. NappyB

    NappyB Zealot (570) Feb 26, 2013 Illinois

    I think 1-5 is more forgiving and will keep people trying more new beers. 80 out of 100 just doesn’t seem as good as 4 out of 5. I like trying things rated 4 or higher and sometimes even below 4. If it went to 1-100 I think I’d be searching for 90 plus rated beers, a much smaller group. Just perception.
    warrendietrich2001 likes this.
  2. papposilenus

    papposilenus Savant (905) Jun 21, 2014 New Hampshire

    First, I'd like to acknowledge that this point is tangential to the intent of Todd's poll and save him the strain of having to roll his eyes again.

    I think there is some value in all those 5/5 ratings without reviews. Individually, they're meaningless because they may just mean that someone who's been drinking BMC's all his life just had his first Julius or paid a hundred bucks in the secondary market or got laid in the parking lot or whatever but, in aggregate, appropriately weighted, they more-or-less contribute a valid direction for the beer's overall rating to be moving in.
    Lone_Freighter likes this.
  3. ChrisCRS

    ChrisCRS Initiate (0) Nov 21, 2017 Ohio

    1-5 has more meaning for me.
  4. landrewg

    landrewg Initiate (132) Nov 11, 2008 Michigan

    I am in a BIF now that requires the losers to send something rated 95+. By my math that would mean something rated 4.75. There are only 2 beers ranked that high! I remember there used to be a bunch of beers rated 95+ so I guess what I'm saying is that I'm confused:thinking_face:
    DrewSnyc667 likes this.
  5. landrewg

    landrewg Initiate (132) Nov 11, 2008 Michigan

    Nobody? @Todd how about you? I tried to find an answer but no luck.
  6. TrojanRB

    TrojanRB Meyvn (1,133) Jul 27, 2013 California
    Premium Trader

    I prefer 0-100....feel like it’s easier to understand and provides a bit more resolution.

    I’m okay sticking with 1-5 because it’s grandfathered in, but I don’t love it.
    DrewSnyc667 and Antg8989 like this.
  7. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Site Editor (7,348) Dec 8, 2007 North Carolina
    Premium Trader

    Remember that the old scale was from 20 - 100 (not 1-100) but you probably need to check with the people in your BIF on what the cut-off score that they are using is...
    drtth likes this.
  8. MostlyNorwegian

    MostlyNorwegian Devotee (489) Feb 5, 2013 Illinois

    Keep it simple. The less numbers involved. The better off you'll be.
    bmugan and dunklevice like this.
  9. nc41

    nc41 Poo-Bah (1,570) Sep 25, 2008 North Carolina

    1-100 allows for more nuances. A 4 beer might be a pretty good beer, but I'm sure a beer rated 95+ on this site is worth a buy. I've never rated a beer as a 5, a truly great beer would be 4.7 or above, and my highest I think are right at 4.85 or so. 1-100 is school grading which we all easily understand.
    DrewSnyc667 likes this.
  10. bbtkd

    bbtkd Poo-Bah (2,000) Sep 20, 2015 South Dakota

    Yes, best to keep the math simple when drinking....
  11. 19etz55

    19etz55 Initiate (0) Aug 12, 2007 New Jersey

    1-10 decimals included
    DrewSnyc667 likes this.
  12. matcris

    matcris Meyvn (1,048) Sep 17, 2015 Arizona

    1-100. I changed my mind. Just like most of the grading scales in schools I attended, so, easy enough.
    DrewSnyc667 likes this.
  13. Antg8989

    Antg8989 Crusader (722) Jul 18, 2014 New Jersey

    I was definitely upset when we switched from 1-100 to 1-5. Almost felt like a new language (even though it is more or less the same). While it's nice to try new things, and I have gotten used to the 1-5 score, I still prefer the 1-100 score. Plus, scoring anything above 95/100 holds more weight to me than scoring a 4.5/5. It also better separates beers once they start scoring over 80. So no question for me.
    DrewSnyc667 and Ryan4120 like this.
  14. Radcpa

    Radcpa Meyvn (1,091) Oct 20, 2015 Washington
    Premium Trader

    I agree with those supporting a 1-100 scale. It definately allowes alit more accuracy in the rating process than currently exists.
    DrewSnyc667, Antg8989 and Ryan4120 like this.
  15. pat61

    pat61 Poo-Bah (5,036) Dec 29, 2010 Minnesota

    I don't think it matters much. I have a calculator and can change from one scale to another and sure it may not be completely accurate depending on how the scales work but it will tell me if beer A is better or worse than beer B and by about how much. The degree of accuracy I may lose is less than the degree of accuracy of my taste buds and nose.So use whatever scale you want. I'm good with it.
    drtth likes this.
  16. AllOfTheCats

    AllOfTheCats Initiate (103) Mar 27, 2018 California

    I prefer the 0-5 scale. I believe most people may be confused about it, however, because a 4 may be subjective to most people. I've always appreciated the Netflix's legacy scale and what Untappd is using right now -

    0 - Garbage
    1 - I didn't like it
    2 - It's okay / not great
    3 - I like it
    4 - I really like it
    5 - I love it

    I feel that rating a high tier beer between 93-100 is difficult. A 93 vs a 94 vs a 95 is just not going to help me or others make decisions in the future. I believe my friends would probably try anything that I rate over a 4, which I didn't have to spend too much time thinking about when I was rating the beer. Going back and looking at my ratings, I would drink anything I rated 4 stars and over again, and my 5 stars, which I am not shy about giving out, are easy to find. I'm serious about beer, and I appreciate that multiple sites allow you to write longer ratings, but if I'm at a brewery trying new beers, I would prefer to decide on 0-5 at that time.
    raynmoon, DrewSnyc667 and VoxRationis like this.
  17. mrfosters

    mrfosters Initiate (112) Dec 7, 2003 New Jersey

    I like the 1-5. It's , in my opinion , simpler . And as some wise person (guy?) once said ....If it ain't broke, you know !
  18. gopens44

    gopens44 Poo-Bah (2,157) Aug 9, 2010 Virginia
    Premium Trader

    I don’t think it really matters since the majority of this community would aim for beer north of 90 or north of 4. Anything lower is just noise.
    DrewSnyc667 likes this.
  19. Radcpa

    Radcpa Meyvn (1,091) Oct 20, 2015 Washington
    Premium Trader

    This may be where the confusion lies. A 90 equates to a 4.5 which is a pretty high score. I usually look at 4.35 which converts to an 85. An 85 sounds like moderate score. I think we need to pick one or the other and stick with it.
  20. bbtkd

    bbtkd Poo-Bah (2,000) Sep 20, 2015 South Dakota

    We don't need to pick one, it's already been picked and BA has said they're not changing it.

  21. bbtkd

    bbtkd Poo-Bah (2,000) Sep 20, 2015 South Dakota

    Keeps coming back around to folks thinking this is about changing the scoring. @Todd are you keeping this open as a barometer, or are you a fan of Groundhog Day? :wink:
  22. Todd

    Todd Founder (5,592) Aug 23, 1996 California

    That's a good question. :thinking_face:
    hopsputin and bbtkd like this.
  23. Domingo

    Domingo Poo-Bah (2,228) Apr 23, 2005 Colorado

    I changed my mind and now like 1-5. I find that out of 100 it feels like too many beers end up with scores that make them sound way better than they are. I kinda like the vagueness of a 1-5 scale.
    GuyFawkes and Bitterbill like this.
  24. IPAExpert69

    IPAExpert69 Initiate (149) Aug 2, 2017 New Jersey

    Yeah come to think of it, I agree. Seeing high quality beers getting Low B's and C's would probably piss people off more than it would help people select new beers to try.
    GuyFawkes likes this.
  25. Domingo

    Domingo Poo-Bah (2,228) Apr 23, 2005 Colorado

    In some cases it's the opposite. I see shelf talkers from "other sites" that make it look like an store's entire beer section is ranked at 95+. I'd rather just see an "A" or something more vague like "very good." If there are thousands of world class beers, it changes what that even means.
    Ranbot, Mothergoose03 and IPAExpert69 like this.
  26. SudsDoctor

    SudsDoctor Devotee (497) Nov 23, 2008 New York

    I'm not vehemently opposed to 1-5...it works. But I voted 1-100 because it provided more than adequate granularity, without having to resort to decimal points and fractions. Letter grading seems too broad, with only 13 grades (F-A+).
    #266 SudsDoctor, Apr 24, 2018
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
    migwell likes this.
  27. GuyFawkes

    GuyFawkes Poo-Bah (1,680) Apr 7, 2011 Illinois

    1-5. Keep it simple, stupid.
    VoxRationis likes this.
  28. migwell

    migwell Initiate (99) Oct 31, 2012 Massachusetts

    Migwell here, Northampton, MA.

    A scale of one through five is actually a scale of one through four. Nothing can ever be a five, since it is impossible for a unanimity of reviewers to give a five rating.

    I would go with 1 to 100, and attempt to negate the current grade creep, where practically everything scores a 3 or a 4, by making it clear that brews not recommended, or that the reviewer would not tell a friend to try, should be rated less than 50. So long Budweiser! Maybe somebody else has come up with a similar idea, but I haven't read through the 266 posts.
    seakayak likes this.
  29. Mothergoose03

    Mothergoose03 Poo-Bah (2,253) May 30, 2005 Michigan

    Maybe you have not rated a beer or a place yet to realize this, but there are quarter-point increments between the whole digits that can be chosen as a rating point so that the scoring actually has 17point levels. To me that is accurate enough to get a proper rating rather than the overly-accurate 1-100 scoring, which I think is over-kill.
    meefmoff and VoxRationis like this.
  30. Ranbot

    Ranbot Zealot (531) Nov 27, 2006 Pennsylvania

    I agree with all of this that 100-point or 10-point scales have too much baggage associated from school. If there's going to be number-based ratings I prefer the current 1-5 scale.

    But... why fight people's inherent associations with grading in first place? Why even use numbers? What if people rated by familiar F to A scale from school? The letter grade scale could be further broken down into increments of F, D-, D, D+,C-, C, C+, B-, B, B+, A-, A, A+. We don't need a number to know what those grades mean. The background Beer Advocate algorithms may assign number values to scores, but they wouldn't have to share the numbers with users as long as the final letter scores calculate correctly.

    Just a thought...
    meefmoff likes this.
  31. Blogjackets

    Blogjackets Initiate (81) Nov 22, 2017 Ohio

    1-5 is my preference. Measuring the subjective opinion is hard enough without offering 100 levels to ponder for the OCD in some of our hearts and minds. Will be nice to see an app to make it easier to enter data from a barstool. Above all else, more beer drinking for the advancement of statistics. Cheers!
  32. migwell

    migwell Initiate (99) Oct 31, 2012 Massachusetts

    Are you following me? Seems not. If not let me make things simpler for you. Everything (or mostly everything) is rated low 3's no matter how crappy it may be (grade creep) to low 4's (pretty good to good). Not much of a rating scale at all. I'm good with a 1 to 100 scale or OK with a 1 to 10 that represented something more than peer pressure timidity. God, it's fine to disagree, and occasionally disagree forcefully with a reasoned point of view. If you, or anyone, would not recommed a particular brew to a trusted and tasteful friend, then it should be rated poorly, that is, below the average of 5 or 50. So long AB InBev.