Place ratings should expire

Reads 4326 • Replies 83 • Started Saturday, March 4, 2017 11:08:29 AM CT

The forums you're viewing are the static, archived version. You won't be able to post or reply here.
Our new, modern forums are here:
RateBeer Forums

Thread Frozen

Message ContemplateBeer beers 2092 º places 154 º 19:29 Sun 3/5/2017 Originally posted by StefanSD Originally posted by ContemplateBeer This idea would penalize all but the most reviewed places, which would still maintain their high rank due to volume. Our current system already does that with its weighting system, no? True. I was speaking of the situation as-is.
Message ContemplateBeer beers 2092 º places 154 º 19:31 Sun 3/5/2017 Originally posted by sthlm Originally posted by ContemplateBeer This is a tough sale for me. I’m all about any change that improves our site, but I’m not entirely sure this would be worth the trouble. As mentioned already, look at the most recent reviews, be it on RateBeer or some other site if we are not the most up to date. This idea would penalize all but the most reviewed places, which would still maintain their high rank due to volume. The places with a small number of ratings often are already penalized! All you need is a couple of low reviews, even if they are from years ago when the store was markedly different, and the store is saddled with that low score. If we are simply going to expect people to have to read reviews from every store due to outdated and inaccurate reviews, then we may as well take the scores away completely. At least that way people won’t skip over places with low scores, and they can just read reviews from each location in an area. That’s a very good point. Personally, if I’m going to an area, I check facebook before pretty much anything else. I don’t have an account, but my wife does, so I just pirate hers for that purpose.
Message JoeinDahlem beers 1664 º places 356 º 02:30 Mon 3/6/2017 Rather than suddenly expiring, couldn’t newer reviews be weighted more, older ones weighted gradually less? Have to admit I enjoy reading old reviews, and sometimes that’s all there are, but often must taken with grains of salt. It may be time for one of those campaigns where we remind everyone to help beef up the section. I know I use it a hell of a lot, but I’m way behind on reviewing places I’ve been.

Message after4ever P admin beers 8025 º places 322 º 10:56 Mon 3/6/2017 I could see eliminating old rating numbers from the score average. But speaking as someone who loves beer history, even the informal notes we enter are still interesting years later, because I am often curious what it was like to hang out at a place years ago before X, Y, and Z. Bottom line--keep the notes, even if we decide to ignore old numbers.
Message joeneugs beers 6372 º places 240 º 17:12 Mon 3/6/2017 Originally posted by StefanSD Another suggestion is to incorporate a small graph showing rating timeline vs scores, that way there is a visual diagram of rating trends. I like this suggestion. Rather than read through a bunch of reviews, you could look at a timeline that would be snapshot of the places’ history since it was entered. Some places improve over time, while many, many others decline...or really just remain the same and become outdated with how fast craft beer is moving these days.
Message fly P beers 1490 º places 271 º 17:31 Mon 3/6/2017 Originally posted by after4ever I could see eliminating old rating numbers from the score average. But speaking as someone who loves beer history, even the informal notes we enter are still interesting years later, because I am often curious what it was like to hang out at a place years ago before X, Y, and Z. Bottom line--keep the notes, even if we decide to ignore old numbers. I tend to agree with this and appreciate that older ratings may seem invalid, but they also note when the rating was made.
Message humlelala beers 1377 º places 89 º 05:01 Tue 3/7/2017 Originally posted by ContemplateBeer This idea would penalize all but the most reviewed places, which would still maintain their high rank due to volume. Which is why the score of a place should be based on the most recent ratings of the beers registered as being available at the place in question. I’m presuming more beers are checked into a place than actual reviews of the place and in any case I don’t really care about an aggregate of lots of different people’s perception of what constitutes "ambience". I think we can all agree that if a place has 500 beers rated at 4+ checked into any given place in the last 6 months that is a place we would all want to visit. By all means keep the possibility for people to write storied review notes of places but the idea that an aggregate of these people’s scoring is a general indication of the place’s merit seems to me to be maintained on premises that are not sustainable in our rating environment.

Message ContemplateBeer beers 2092 º places 154 º 06:07 Tue 3/7/2017 Originally posted by humlelala Originally posted by ContemplateBeer This idea would penalize all but the most reviewed places, which would still maintain their high rank due to volume. Which is why the score of a place should be based on the most recent ratings of the beers registered as being available at the place in question. I’m presuming more beers are checked into a place than actual reviews of the place and in any case I don’t really care about an aggregate of lots of different people’s perception of what constitutes "ambience". I think we can all agree that if a place has 500 beers rated at 4+ checked into any given place in the last 6 months that is a place we would all want to visit. By all means keep the possibility for people to write storied review notes of places but the idea that an aggregate of these people’s scoring is a general indication of the place’s merit seems to me to be maintained on premises that are not sustainable in our rating environment. I’m wondering how many would wish for the same to apply to beer ratings... as a overly simple comparison: Ratings less than one year old: 100% count 1-2 years: 97% count (as in, 97% of the total score of all the 1-2 year old ratings counts towards the total score for the beer) 2-3 years: 94% count And so on. I know this is probably the most stupid way to propose the idea, but do you support a diminishing scale for older beer ratings?
Message chriso P beers 7540 º places 736 º 07:39 Tue 3/7/2017 Originally posted by humlelala I’m presuming more beers are checked into a place than actual reviews of the place and in any case I don’t really care about an aggregate of lots of different people’s perception of what constitutes "ambience". I think we can all agree that if a place has 500 beers rated at 4+ checked into any given place in the last 6 months that is a place we would all want to visit. I think you’d need to be a bit carfeul about going down this route because:- 1. I think "checking in" of beers is very patchy. Some places - possibly those where there’s a local regular visitor who puts some effort into it - have a lot of beers added. Others have very few (or none), despite having an excellent selection. 2. I suspect the majority of "check-ins" are added when a rating is entered. That may be long after the event, so not very relevant. 3. I doubt many people add all beers at a place, whether they have them or not. You’d need a lot more of this to make the system very reliable. 4. The presence of very highly rated beers is not the only reason why someone would want to visit a place, especially when they are quite common ones. Some highly regarded beers are widely distributed and widely available. RateBeer users are unlikely to be attracted to a [lace with highly scoring beers if they’re likely to be ones they’ve had before. 5. I doubt there’d be the techie resources, or will, to implement a system (that could be quite complex) anyway.
Message The_Osprey beers 10591 º places 178 º 08:00 Tue 3/7/2017 Giving old scores a weighting reduction is simply not a good idea. It has the effect of skewing the database to suggest that all new places and beers are better than anything that came before. It also makes it easier for homers to manipulate scoring. It’s far too extreme and complex a way of dealing with the issue