- use the word "dink" (*)
- suggest that if the beer is bad it shouldn’t be reviewed
(*) the only recognized meaning of dink is ’double-income no-kids’, but we all know what the writer means;
why using this childish language? I asked around and apparently nobody is using it
http://www.thegrowler.ca/the-growler-guide-to-reviewing-beer-without-being-a-total-dink-about-it/
A real treasure; it includes suggestions for:
- not reviewing the beer if I’m not not thirsty
- not reviewing the beer if I’m only getting a sample-size
- not reviewing the beer if I have style prejudices
- not reviewing the beer if I’m able to find defects in beer (diacetyl and acetaldehyde)
- not reviewing the beer if I didn’t like previous beers from this brewery
- not reviewing the beer if I can’t find the right glassware, ideally a tulip
- review only beers that make me want to drink the 4th (!) glass of it
And a stylish quote, don’t miss it!
"they should all just unplug that cork from its unholiest of positions" |
- Sipping a beer has nothing to do with thirst; actually a thirsty drinker would drink too fast and not appreciate the beer for what it is.
- What is the right sample size? most establishment in Vancouver serve a minimum of 5-6 oz, that’s half a bottle! If a beer is infected you don’t need more than a spoonful to realize that; every sip after the spoonful is only self-inflicted punishment.
- Having prejudices is human; and it doesn’t mean that one can’t change his mind, if the beer deserves it;
but if you choose to sell a Radler, do you expect a gold medal for a mix of lemonade and possibly the blandest of your beers?
- Sadly too many beers in Vancouver have evident flaws; the experience suggests that is more likely that the brewer and staff actually have no idea about the flaws;
brewers should also consider that some pubs don’t handle their beer professionally; if a brewer is concerned with these processes, they should stop selling to them, not complain with the customer; typical issues include storing the keg for too long before tapping, keeping it on tap for weeks and weeks, not cleaning the lines, shaking the casks...
- Indeed I now try to refrain from drinking beers from some brewery (more to come later); but what’s wrong if I had 5 bad beers, and still I review the 6th beer from brewery X? brewery X should be concerned that they can’t brew good beers; and if the beer is not good, consumers have the right to express their opinion.
- The guy behind the article (such a dink, he decided to remain anonymous) should notice that all of his colleagues or friends in the industry use the most inefficient glasses (pint shaped, from small to large), no room left for collecting the aroma, filled to the rim, with no head; in which way the choice of glassware is the consumer’s responsibility? at home I use a good glass...
I review for myself and I review for everybody (and yes, I also use RB to guide my bottle purchases).
For myself, how would I know where is the next good beer if I don’t try them? if I wanted a safe harbour, I would just be stuck with Fat Tug and wouldn’t dare trying anything else.
For everybody else, how would they know when they risk to waste their money, if bad reviews were forbidden by law?
So, don’t be a dink!
Tell your friend brewers that these guys have sometimes harsh words because those beers suck, and the local beer scene, that has so far expanded horizontally (quantity), must not expand vertically! |
Great take down. That is one of the worst articles, if not worst ever, related to beer that I’ve ever read. But I guess that’s to be expected from the sewer of a publication that is The Growler. |
Serving sizes actually go smaller as you optimize your tasting. At any serious judging, you get a pour of maybe 1.5 oz, and don’t even finish it (in the first round). For medal rounds obviously you’re finishing anything close, but a beer has to make it to the medal round. Never saw a brewer turn down a medal because the sample size wasn’t big enough. Come on. The guy slugging back a six pack is the least likely to be paying attention to the beer.
Actually, now that I think of it, brewers whose beer gets good reviews don’t seem to complain about the process much at all.
I did like the four pints argument, too. Guess women aren’t allowed to review beers at all, and half the guys out there shouldn’t be reviewing strong beers. I mean, I’m not small by any means and I wouldn’t dream of taking out four bombers of IIPA in one go. What kind of a monkey would write that?
And it goes without saying that every beer stands on its own. If people I trust tell me to try a beer from Brewery X because it’s good, I’ll try it. Why not? Most breweries that are technically competent make something I’ll like. Now, one can argue that the scores handed out aren’t devastating. Ok, true, but look at the reviewers. Four of us are way up the charts. That means experience. Experience means that we’ve had more good, great and shitty beers than almost any brewer. Technical knowledge is cool, I don’t discount that, but you can’t discount the fact that if I say your bitter is "ok", that’s because I’ve dropped 1000 of them in Britain and I know yours is just "ok", but by no means great, and certainly not shitty. You want to score high with your saison? Awesome. Good on ya. Brew one better than Dupont. Hell, get close and we’ll talk. But don’t miss the mark by half a mile and expect me to think you’ve got a world class beer on your hands, because I know better. And any brewer worth his salt would, too. I think there’s an issue with brewers accepting mediocrity as ok.
But I have to say as well that the author misses one massive point. Ratebeer doesn’t serve the industry. The industry isn’t paying the bills around here. Consumers - members and those who view ads - pay the bills. That’s the market we serve. And our interest is in trying beers and reporting on them, for the benefit of like-minded individuals. Rather entitled of someone to suggest that a site produced and paid for by beer lovers for the benefit of other beer lovers should ignore that constituency in order to placate (mediocre) brewers who make zero contribution to the site.
|
|
|
|
|
Little known fact, that beer was named after me |
Which one --- Jerkface9000 ??? |
Brassneck Massive Aggressive |
|
|
How to write a drink article |
That was painful to read.
I’ve heard people use dink before. Same sort of people who say heck instead of hell, or jeepers etc |
