Why do people review beers when...

I review “expired” beers in the following situations:
I always note the age of the bottle.

* The beer is no longer in production. My review is representative for all still existing bottles.
* It only recently appeared in stores.
* It is sold like that at a beer festival.
* The beer tastes old but the bottle is not dated (brewer clearly considers the beer good to drink).
* It is a beer that is supposedly better with age (very rare). Basically only hoppy barley wines so far.

As for infected beers:

* Brewers are to blame for this one. I see no issue with reviewing the beer.

(The very vast bulk of my reviews are not here).

 

This. This. A thousand times, this.

 

Agree with all this 100%, but also bring to light one of the biggest flaws of this site. We all agree that beers especially some of the ones we on BA are drinking are living things, or if nothing else change over time. So why would we have one review for a particular beer. If I drink an All Green Everything the day I get it and then another a month later, they will be very noticeably different. Beers should be rated every time we drink them, not a composite. In addition to beers varying from day to day, they also vary batch to batch and vintage to vintage. It makes absolutely no sense for me to have one rating and review that for both a 2013 Velvet Merkin (Oatmeal) and a 2015 (Oatmeal + MIlk).

I think wine sites like Cellartracker get it right. Review every time you try one.

 

So if I have a bad experience at a restaurant, I shouldn't review it because they were having an off night?

Review beer with extenuating circumstances noted. An out-of-date beer is not really a legit target for review, but an infected beer IMHO is totally fair game. This indicates a problem with the beer and brewery.

And as far as "ruining the scores" of beers - might help to take a deep breath and contemplate that everything in general and this site in particular should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

I kind of see both sides here. The problem is you were reviewing the restaurant on Yelp, I believe you could post a bad score for the off night, but if you went there 5 other times and had the best meal of your life you could review separately each time. On BA you have to review as a composite. To be honest if I went somewhere and had a great food for years, but then got food poisoning one time I really don't know what the appropriate rating for that place would be.

Going back to the wine thing, if I see a bunch of high ratings and a bunch of No Rating/Flawed, I'm going to know that that producer makes excellent wine but may have a brett problem and can proceed accordingly.

 

Good point. If you look at my reviews here, I will update if I have the beer again and the experience is different enough to warrant a change in the rating. Generally, though, I won't give a brewery more of my money if they didn't earn it the first time or two.

 

I don't understand why you read them, either.

 

Good thread, but there will not be agreement.

I rate (or tick) every beer I drink, regardless of age. I will note the age if I know it in my review or comments. I like to know when someone tried a beer past it's age and reviews it, not all are bad. Some hold up well, some not. But, I'd not know if no one rated them. As for infected, they get a bad rating, period. If I buy it, and it isn't shady it is supposed to be, my rating will reflect. If ba rated by vintage, that would solve a single year with a bad batch effecting the entire rating, yet I really don't care.

What we really need is for BA to allow a tick, without rating, like on untappd. I'd use that when I know something is old. I would not use it for infected beers, they get the rating they get.

Just my opinion, y'all do what you want...

 

My favorite is the person who gives a low rating and says "I'm not a fan of this style".

 

You review ****'s wouldn't like it if Bud Light was in the top 250... so enough with this 'review to style' BS...

If the review doesn't help you, move on to the next one. Not hard.

 

I did this once, mainly to remind myself to find it fresh and redo the review, but also to passively alert the brewery that their product (Weyerbacher Double Simcoe) was served flat, infected and warm by a well known bar that is fairly local to the brewery itself.

 

Re: "old beer"

When I rate older beers especially IPA's I make a point to mention the age of it. Canadian distro is unbelievable awful (Sam Adams Summer Ale just landed...). In most cases, I'll just use untappd so I don't start making a mess of the rating.

Re: Review to style

I'm all for reviewing to style, to a point. I could never give an AAL a 5 simply because it hits all the highlights of the style. It's still an uninspired beer.

There is another thread right now about logging old ticks. A lot of the same concepts apply here. Why would I make up a bunch of stuff about a beer I had 6 weeks ago? Brewers look here ( and other places) for feedback. By knowingly reviewing a beer from a style you hate, something way past it's ideal date ( subject to debate, I like 1-2 year old IPA's) and rating/reviewing it a month after you drank it, you are knowingly driving the score down for no good reason.

 

Nah, just a person who likes beer and likes to play with words.

 

I think about half the reviews for Stone Enjoy After are from before the "after" date. 4 of the first 6 reviews on there right now explicitly state they are reviewing 2016 versions. Feel free to drink it whenever you want, but why review it if you are deliberately drinking it when it is not ready according to the brewer. Bizarre.

 

On the flip side, I find it far, far, far more bizarre that a brewer would release a beer that isn't ready.

It's a nice marketing ploy, but saying "hey, buy this, but don't drink it yet!" is just silly.

 

I don't necessarily mind ticking a beer as a 'had', even if the circumstances weren't perfect - with the necessary mental note to try it again if I get the chance. However, for me to write a review I need to feel like I tasted the beer in near-optimal condition.

On the other hand, what's the rest of your stance on elevating a beers rating if it ages well? Isn't it the same dilemma? If a above-average beer ages well and becomes excellent, does that necessarily indicate a great beer? Shouldn't that be given the same treatment as a beer that goes bad? Or is it acceptable to give a beer a higher rating if it ages well, but not to lower it if it goes sour? I don't really have a foot in this game, I'm just curious.

 

Marketing or not, they sure haven't hidden what they are doing. Nobody forces you to buy anything. Giant bold lettering tells you when to drink, and scoring it low because you are impatient or simply stupid doesn't make sense.

 

It's almost like selling donuts that say "Don't eat until Tuesday, not quite ready". But beer gets a pass. Gotcha.