Originally posted by graziano85
Originally posted by McTapps
and am not even talking beer shots because how should you be able to rate a beer with one sip?
That’s what I also don’t understand...especially for the "Overall" rating  but also the appearance, I think to see the real appearance you must fill its glass properly.
Yeah, exactly... Most of the time I have 0,25 l, sometimes even 0,5 l of a beer and when I rate it "live" I just experience how a beer developes. And sometimes, when the rest of the beer is "okay" I might give it a higher score in overall, because I might just have enjoyed or liked that beer for what it is. |
I used to try to rate everything but now I just rate whenever I feel like it. |
HA! I rate about a tenth or less of the beers I drink. Some that I have had cases of that are GOOD BEERS - I just forget and am terribly lazy. Not sure what drives me to enter what I do..
|
|
|
Originally posted by kdm1984
I believe I have since I joined the site. Perhaps one of these days I will make the top 50 women raters.
I am rooting for ya.  |
Originally posted by GT2
Originally posted by womencantsail
Originally posted by t0rin0
Originally posted by after4ever
Originally posted by GT2
All. Selection bias is introduced by deciding not to rate macros or tap only things
I can’t argue with the correctness of this statement, but it’s still not enough to make me pay money to go try Coors Light or whatever. If a free one comes my way, I will rate it, but I can’t just buy everything that happens to be for sale around me.
If I were to put a bottom 100 list together from every beer I’ve ever tried that list would be 95% "craft" beers that were made poorly (infected, no knowledge of the style, no knowledge of brewing, etc). There are much worse beers out there than macros.
The more beers I try, the more I agree with this. Of course, the numbers (my scores) probably don’t agree with it, but that’s probably because I likely rated those lagers when I was in my "it’s cool to hate on macros" phase.
Agreed with everything above. However, op should have titled this thread rate ever beer [that you drink]. So if bad beer comes my way, I’ll rate it. But certainly I would never advocate for buying shitty beer for the sole purpose of rating it.
That was my main point. There’s no health benefit, or cost savings, to drinking a beer and not rating it. But you can avoid garbage.
And I totally get that we take our chances with many beers, and many of them suck. But there’s no point intentionally buying BMC because we "know what we’re getting" or whatever. I’d rather spend $50 for a day driving out to a couple remote breweries and trying a couple taster trays that turn out to be ALL crap than spend $9.99 on an 18-pack of industrial crap. It’s not just whether it’s good--the businesses I choose to support are also a big part of the beers I order. |
Originally posted by McTapps
Yeah, exactly... Most of the time I have 0,25 l, sometimes even 0,5 l of a beer and when I rate it "live" I just experience how a beer developes. And sometimes, when the rest of the beer is "okay" I might give it a higher score in overall, because I might just have enjoyed or liked that beer for what it is.
|
Originally posted by Bill Becker
Originally posted by kdm1984
I believe I have since I joined the site. Perhaps one of these days I will make the top 50 women raters.
I am rooting for ya.
Me too! She can do it. |
|
|
Originally posted by after4ever
Originally posted by GT2
Originally posted by womencantsail
Originally posted by t0rin0
Originally posted by after4ever
Originally posted by GT2
All. Selection bias is introduced by deciding not to rate macros or tap only things
I can’t argue with the correctness of this statement, but it’s still not enough to make me pay money to go try Coors Light or whatever. If a free one comes my way, I will rate it, but I can’t just buy everything that happens to be for sale around me.
If I were to put a bottom 100 list together from every beer I’ve ever tried that list would be 95% "craft" beers that were made poorly (infected, no knowledge of the style, no knowledge of brewing, etc). There are much worse beers out there than macros.
The more beers I try, the more I agree with this. Of course, the numbers (my scores) probably don’t agree with it, but that’s probably because I likely rated those lagers when I was in my "it’s cool to hate on macros" phase.
Agreed with everything above. However, op should have titled this thread rate ever beer [that you drink]. So if bad beer comes my way, I’ll rate it. But certainly I would never advocate for buying shitty beer for the sole purpose of rating it.
That was my main point. There’s no health benefit, or cost savings, to drinking a beer and not rating it. But you can avoid garbage.
And I totally get that we take our chances with many beers, and many of them suck. But there’s no point intentionally buying BMC because we "know what we’re getting" or whatever. I’d rather spend $50 for a day driving out to a couple remote breweries and trying a couple taster trays that turn out to be ALL crap than spend $9.99 on an 18-pack of industrial crap. It’s not just whether it’s good--the businesses I choose to support are also a big part of the beers I order.
Agreed, part of the adventure of trying new beers is traveling to weird cities and countries and getting to talk to locals and the brewers. Hell, many places I’ve been I would have never visited if they didn’t have special beer. |
I tend to just rate santa beers these days, before when I rated sporadically I didn’t come close to rating every beer. |
Do I rate every beer I drink?? No. What’s the point? I no longer enjoy rating, so I don’t rate that often nowadays. Do I still enjoy good beer? Absolutely.
By now I know what I like and don’t like. |
