Voy a poner en una serie de entradas las directrices que dicta RB de cara a poner una cerveza como nueva o no debido a la pregunta de Lowenbrau en otro "hilo" de este mismo foro:
1) Barrel Treatments: In most cases barrel treatments will result in a new entry. The only exceptions here are similar barrel treatments of the same base beer such as two Bourbon treatments of a single Imperial Stout. However, the same type of barrel treatments can result in two entries. The key here is a combination of 1) Brand Distinction and 2) Brewer Intention. If the treatment is a different bourbon barrel, and one that results in a distinct product, it can be a new entry. However, it also requires the brewer’s intent to label and market it as a new product. This can be new labels or other ways such as wax differences or other markings. Without the clear intent to make a new product it will not be a new entry. Often brewers will utilize different barrels on a beer from year to year without marketing it as being different; we do not want these to be different entries. In the few cases such as Bourbon County Stout/ Rare, when there is a marketing and brand distinction it should be a new entry. Deciding what is a distinctly new product is difficult, so our default position here will be to follow the brewer’s intention, but with the ability to make our own decisions based on the information we have.
|
2) Dry Hopping: the policy here is mostly centered on brewer’s intent and marketing. A dry hopped beer will be a new entry if it:
a) It is bottled and given a new brand
b) If the beer is not bottled but is given wide release, indicating brewer intent to market this beer distinctly from the base beer
c) If production is a full-batch (i.e. brewed specifically with the intent to make the dry-hopped version)
The point here is that lots of places will dry hop on their own (especially in the UK), adding hops to the cask. These informal changes are too numerous and not significant enough to justify new entries. So a dry-hopped beer will NOT be a new entry:
a) If the beer was dry-hopped after packaging in any way (at a pub, using a hopping device such as a Randall). This distinction will cover many English cask ales.
b) If the beer is not bottled and is given an informal brand (e.g. Dix IPA Simcoe Dry-Hop, Dix IPA Amarillo Dry-Hop, etc)
c) If a beer is not bottled and not given wide release (e.g. only a few casks made available at festivals or top beer bars)
d) If production is a run-off of a full batch of base beer (i.e. the brewer runs a few casks off of a regular batch of IPA to use for the weekly dry-hop cask special).
Notable Exceptions: There are always exceptions. One that makes sense intuitively is the Revelation Cat dry-hopped lambics. Lambic of course has no natural hop character whatsoever. Dry-hopping a lambic is dramatic an alteration to the style as putting a stout in a bourbon barrel.
Further notes: Lines beyond this are difficult to draw as it is conceivable that in time the brewing world fills in all points between any arbitrary distinctions we set. Cases can be addressed individually BUT not at the discretion of a single admin (because these cases will be cited in complaints about the site, we need to work together to ensure consistency). |
3) Adding adjuncts (such as fruit or coffee) when is this a new entry? Adding treatments with fruit, or nuts, etc. does make new entries. See Cigar City.
4) Retired beers, the policy on what can and cannot be entered: Beers are retired if after one year, the beer has not been remade. We also allow (and encourage) retirement of festival one-offs that are single cask issues. Retirement is easily undone, and admins shouldn’t be overly hesitant to retire beers. Retired beers cannot be entered on the site. This is to keep the workload reasonable for admins and due to verification issues.
5) Amateur/Professional issues, whose beer is allowed: home brews are not allowed. This issue comes up specifically with questions about individuals who blend commercially available lambic. Our general line here is the legal requirement/definition of a brewer; if a person has such a license and blends or brews it will constitute a new entry. In each country this differs of course. This rule is necessarily flexible then when countries do not require such licensing. The basic point here is to allow for professional brews but not privately made ones. At the time of writing this document, administrators have learned that blenders De Cam and Tilquin have brewing licenses, while Yves Panneels does not. Thus blends by Yves Panneels are not to be added to the database, per his request. [Source: Yves Panneels]. Pro-Am beers are allowed because they are produced by professional licensed brewers.
|
6) Rice Wines: Non-Sake rice wines are not allowed. There are a variety of reasons, mostly centering on the difficulty of verification, lack of information generally and lack of a history and guidelines. Drinks made, and called Sake, that adhere to the traditional method of Sake making, with Koji are allowed. This rule is specifically utilized when we are discussing Chinese and Korean rice wines. If you have a question about a possible entry from China or Korea please post it in the admin forum or contact one of our Sake administrators.
7) Blends: beers that are blended by the brewers prior to being in the glass are allowed. That is, if the beer is bottled/canned as a blend or blended in the keg/cask this is a separate entry. Distributor blending is not a new entry. Post-keg, inline blending is similarly not a new listing.
8)Non-Alcohol Ciders/Sake and Mead are not allowed
9)When does a change in ABV make a new entry?
Changes in ABV of up to 10% in either direction are not considered new beers. For small changes in ABV which are documented by content administrators, existing listings can and should be edited. Changes of ABV above 10% may be considered a new beer entry, but are not required to be considered as such. As an example, for a listed 5% ABV beer, we do not add a new beer unless the ABV is lower than 4.5% or higher than 5.5%. Even so, when adding a new beer, common sense and a commitment to information-seeking should prevail; is there any evidence that, for example, a 4.4% pilsener is different than the 5.0% pilsener, even though the ABV change is over 10%? |
|
|
10) Flavored ciders: Fruit infused ciders are not allowed.
11) Bottle conditioning: In no cases does bottle conditioning make a new entry.
12) Cask- separate entry rules:
In this situation, there are a few basic criteria to which we adhere:
1) full batch production (i.e. not a few casks run off of a normal batch)
2) the non-cask version needs to be pasteurized. This is a key distinction that causes confusion but it is one of the most important elements of ‘real ale’ or ‘live beer’.
3) typically the two versions will receive distinct marketing...cask ale at pubs, pasteurized bottled beer at supermarkets.
These rules are largely confined to use in the United Kingdom where real ales are common. If there are questions about a cask entry please contact the British admins. |
13) New Styles: The main criteria for creating a new style (on the site):
a) History- does this style have a history, is it recognizable as a distinct style? Innovations happen, and a new style may emerge without significant precedent though.
b) is it easily defined (this is crucial)
c) numbers- does its presence demand inclusion. How many are produced? In the case
Gose for example, while having a history and definition it is not large enough to suit its
own category.
14) Filtered/Non Filtered beer: the policy is limited to lagers and also limited to if both are sold simultaneously, as is common in Eastern Europe. We made an exception here for Weyerbacher Double Simcoe because both bottles are bottled and distinctly labeled.
15) Radler/Shandy/Beer-mix: In general shandies should consist of at least 50% beer to qualify for an entry. Brews which retain a strong beer character despite having a lower mix-ratio can be allowed as exceptions. Flavored alcohol-free brews are not allowed in the database. The reason being than they are two steps removed from being a beer (both alcohol free and a shandy) and that is where we have to draw the line.
|
No me queda claro el tema de la cerveza que consultada, con solo un cambio de lúpulo. Vistas las normas, deberíamos ser más estrictos a la hora de crear entradas nuevas para pequeñas variaciones de una cerveza. |
Efectivamente creo que en las normas no se contempla por lo que se supone que esa cerveza con la variedad de un solo lúpulo debería ser considereda como nueva.
Lo de crear nuevas entradas para pequeñas variaciones de lúpulos lo veo bien pero muchas veces, y yo soy el primero, no me fijo en la descripción que aporta Ratebeer..., partiendo del hecho que en muchas ocasiones no existe tal descripción... |
