In light of the recent controversy, I’m interested to know what people think of some of the points that came up about Ratebeer. In particular:
How much of a beer do you need to drink to give a fair rating? I reckon I can rate 1/6 of a pint fairly (as this was the rough serving size at LCBF) but 1/3 is much better.
How much can you drink in a day before your ratings get affected?
Why do you think some styles do so well in comparison to others? For example, I’ve noticed that sour beers generally do a lot better than other styles.
Is it fair to rate a cask ale from a one-off taste, as condition varies so much?
|
How much of a beer do you need to drink to give a fair rating?
I prefer at least half a pint: but I have rated beers on a lot less, but very rarely.
How much can you drink in a day before your ratings get affected?
Varies depending on circumstances, tonight for instance I have had 6 x 500ml bottles (with a swig of water between bottles) and I think I am fine: beer festivals can sneak up on you. Food makes a difference too.
Why do you think some styles do so well in comparison to others?
This is a universal site, but Americans are the main contributors and they tend to prefer ’extreme’ flavoured beers, be they sour or strong alcohol brews.
Is it fair to rate a cask ale from a one-off taste, as condition varies so much?
No, but I do on occasions: I try and be objective rather than subjective though.
<*))))))>< |
Originally posted by Osprey87
In light of the recent controversy, I’m interested to know what people think of some of the points that came up about Ratebeer. In particular:
How much of a beer do you need to drink to give a fair rating? I reckon I can rate 1/6 of a pint fairly (as this was the rough serving size at LCBF) but 1/3 is much better.
[/quote[]
I think it’s a pretty arbitrary matter. When I drink really great, complex beers, I learn new things about their character over years of drinking them. I have no idea how many Orval’s I’ve drank over the years, but it’s a lot, and I am much more intimately aware of its characteristics than I was when I had my first sip, my first bottle, my first twenty bottles and so on. The more you drink of it, the more you know. If you haven’t tasted it, don’t rate it, otherwise, rate when you feel comfortable rating. There is no serious, well-justified cut-off line that is worth making a general rule out of.
How much can you drink in a day before your ratings get affected?
Probably depends on a lot of factors. It will depend on palate, what you’re eating, what else you’re drinking, your mood, how good your nose/mouth is working that day, whether you’re hungover, whether you’ve smoked too much that morning etc. It depends on what you want form your ratings. Do you want your ratings to be a reflection of what you think of a beer in the best possible surroundings, with your best tasting hat on, with the beer in optimum condition? If so, get a Tardis, some olbas oil and fly off to Mount Olympus and rate 5 beers in your entire life. That’s fine. If you’re less bothered about these things, or just want to rate to keep track of what you’ve tasted, rate lots in one day.
Why do you think some styles do so well in comparison to others? For example, I’ve noticed that sour beers generally do a lot better than other styles.
Depends on the style. I think a big factor is easy distinguishability from non-craft beer. If you’re new to it, you can probably mix-up a well-made pils with some mass-produced crap, but there is no danger of confusing bud with Dark Lord, or an arbitrary, difficult to obtain sour. People discover something new and want to experience the differences between it and the old stuff they are used to. Lots of other factors too.
Is it fair to rate a cask ale from a one-off taste, as condition varies so much?
Fair to whom? The brewer? Sure. Whether someone chooses to rate a beer kept in poor condition is up to them, but I don’t see any reason you’re obligated to pretend badly conditioned beers don’t exist, or to hide them from sites like ratebeer.
I don’t think ratebeer has to worry about any of these problems. The ratings tell us what they tell us and their virtues and limitations (the former far out-weigh the latter) should be obvious to anyone who spends five minutes looking at the site. People who get raging about it are basement-dwelling dafties who would do well to take a deep breath and have a beer. |
Originally posted by BlackHaddock Yeah I’ve had quite a few of my ticks from festivals. I may start to miss some of the more subtle flavours towards the end of the day! I find that my rating varies more with cask than with bottled or keg beers. I’ve had some highly rated cask beers that have tasted dodgy on the day, but which are unlikely to get a second chance (e.g. Wetherspoons specials). Just one of those things I guess! I’ve avoided rating beers that are clearly infected or flawed, but I’ve rated insipid or ’cheesy’ beers which may be showing signs of poor condition rather than poor brewing. |
|
|
Originally posted by Osprey87
Originally posted by BlackHaddock
Yeah I’ve had quite a few of my ticks from festivals. I may start to miss some of the more subtle flavours towards the end of the day!
I find that my rating varies more with cask than with bottled or keg beers. I’ve had some highly rated cask beers that have tasted dodgy on the day, but which are unlikely to get a second chance (e.g. Wetherspoons specials). Just one of those things I guess! I’ve avoided rating beers that are clearly infected or flawed, but I’ve rated insipid or ’cheesy’ beers which may be showing signs of poor condition rather than poor brewing.
I did not rate ’cask ales’ very often unless I really knew the brews. I always thought the beer could have too many ’issues’ in some pubs, or if you only have the beer once and do not really know what it should taste like. I then got the ’ticking bug’ and started rating them, although I have calmed down again now and usually have an old favourite in most pubs unless something catches my eye.
When out with the wife or friends it did not feel right getting a notebook out, but now if I do, everyone knows I am a beer geek and they accept it.
As for festivals, my notes get shorter and more difficult to read after about 6 half-pints, or even less when overseas: I have started underlining certain words in the ’tasting notes’ that fit my thoughts at some festivals to help me complete my ratings (do not tell the rating Police).
<*))))))>< |
How much of a beer do you need to drink to give a fair rating?
A pipette droplet generally works for me.
How much can you drink in a day before your ratings get affected?
I’ve had a few 100 plus days since being on RB. Doesn’t affect my ratings. I tend to jump from style to style to break up my pallet.
Imperial stout then a golden blond then a sour etc etc.
Some folks like to do all the lower ABV beers first and ramp up - I like to mix it. Each to their own.
Why do you think some styles do so well in comparison to others?
Complexity and depth of flavour. Some styles are just not going to deliver in this respect.
Is it fair to rate a cask ale from a one-off taste, as condition varies so much?
Of course ... You just get to learn when a beer is sub optimal in terms of conditioning at the venue as opposed to the beer itself and don’t rate it, or mark as such in your rating. |
Fair play - 100 a day is Michael Jackson-esque. I think my best is about 30 at this year’s LCBF. Surprised I made it from East to West London after that particular session. |
3-5 10 cl samples pr. hour. |
|
|
If i cant get on it, fuck that shit. |
Nice to see some discussion around these points. Here are my thoughts.
How much of a beer do you need to drink to give a fair rating?
I think 1/3 is the high end of a ’minimum needed’, and that you can give a beer a fair assessment with around 1/6. Of course, there are other factors, such as pace of rating, environment, palate freshness, etc.
How much can you drink in a day before your ratings get affected?
This really depends on the circumstances. The most important consideration is pace. If you try to analyse 50 beers in an hour, you won’t have time to adequately consider the beer, or take breaks for food and palate refreshment. On top of that, you’ll likely get a bit buzzed. The longer the duration of the tasting period, the more beers you can fairly analyse. Personally, I’ve done around/above 100 beers in a day a handful of times, and each time the tasting period was around 10-12 hours, with regular breaks for food and water. Ten ratings per hour is a pretty reasonable pace.
Why do you think some styles do so well in comparison to others?
There’s a big difference between level of flavour and level of quality. But most RB users don’t have the training to distinguish between the two (we are all susceptible to this phenomenon I think), which is fine because that’s not the goal of the Site. So understandably, beers with big flavours (imperial stouts, DIPAs, barley wines, to an extent sours) will get higher scores, not because they are technically better beers than beers from more nuanced styles, but rather because they have stronger flavours.
Is it fair to rate a cask ale from a one-off taste, as condition varies so much?
Yes. For one thing, where do you draw the line in terms of what would be ’rateable’/good condition and what wouldn’t? I think most people can gauge when a beer is in good condition and when it is in poor condition, but in between the two extremes where would you draw the line? Also, I think that negative reviews due to poor condition have value, for the reason that if you indicate the pub serving the beer, then the brewer knows that the pub might not be handling its beer well. |
if i were a brewer and someone was rating my beer from thimble like glasses some of the scandinavian raters use , i would be pissed off .. |
