RateBeer.com

[nzbrewer]

I look at some of the ratings, and feedback, and ranking of some of the beers on RateBeer.com, and I find myself wondering if the crowd collectively is right, or they are just following the rest of the crowd. Do these people judge/rate these beers unbiasedly or is it very emotional? Many cases it looks emotional.

I'd like to take an example of Epic Lager. This beer is filtered bright, has a nice white head (even noted in the comments) but all the reviewers gave Appearance 3/5. What is wrong with this beer that it loses 2 points for its appearance. Is it just the fact you can't give full marks for appearance, or is 3/5 the best anyone gets unless there is emotion or passion from the reviewer towards the beer?

http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/epic-lager/85644/1005/

[Stu McKinlay]

Sorry Shane - my reply was to Greig. Not sure why it ended up under your comment. I'd give "ning" a 3/5, at best.

[Shane Morley]

I can see were you are coming from. I like to go more to a Judging style so I can compare it to other beers of the same style. It also gives me a chance when a retry the beer in 6 months or a years time to see if it has improved.

[Greig McGill]

It's for sheer Rocktitude.

[Stu McKinlay]

Ratebeer plays a happy birthday tune for you on your birthday... it is a 1/5 on the Rocktitude scale.

[Sam Possenniskie (TGM)]

Hi Luke, I'd also be one of those you are referring to. I like to think that I don't follow the crowd - and anyone who knows me would certainly vouch for that. I make all my ratings away from the computer, so if there are any similarities, then a collective we must be!

In terms of appearance, I would generally start all my ratings at a 3 and then look for reasons why I should lift or drop that rating. But I must confess my own preferences come into play here. I just love the look of a dark ale, so typically the blacker hues have a good chance of a higher rating. I'm also a sucker for large rocky/pillowy head and also good lacing down the glass, so that invariably gets an extra point or two.

In the case of the Epic Lager - yes, it has a good clear light gold with a decent foamy head, but a bit par for the course for a lager. Hence the 3. Maybe if there was a 3.5 I would have given it that. But I'm not a lager-lover (blame nearly 4 years living in the UK for that), so it is usually grudgingly that I give extra points to any lager. For a lager, it is pretty good. And I'm doing a good job of using it to tempt the lager-lovers I know into something more interesting than a Steinlager Pure or a Macs Gold. But I much prefer your Pale Ale, and the three I had on Friday night were in good form.

On the other topic of discussion, I most definitely disagree with judging a beer on its style. That would be quite against the philosophy of ratebeer.com. If I rated a lager comparably high against its peers, that could give it a similar rating to a much superior beer. Us ratebeerians should be rating on one overall style - beer. If we want to rate on style, we should be going to ratelager.com, etc. I found most lagers uninspiring compared to the other great sytles beer can come in and I will generally rate as such. Yes there can be some great lagers, and I'll give them the credit they are due. But I'll be damned if I'll be dishing out lager ratings the equal of a fine bitter, mild of porter.

A great debate to bring up though Luke - prompted me to register as RealBeer member, which I should have done anyway. Looking forward to meeting you some time very soon.

Sam

[Andrew]

So handed a beer in a nice pottery stein, where does this leave you?

[Stu McKinlay]

4/5 if it is a nice stein.
5/5 if I can see a nice head.

[Andrew]

ooooo .. that's easy!

[nzbrewer]

Sam

Still confused. So just so I have it straight.
1. for you don't like a style its appearance starts at a 3/5
2. if you prefer dark beers then 3/5 is the best a lager is likely to get
3. if you really love a brand, but don't like a style it is still likely to get 5/5 (Emerson's Pilsner? unfiltered?)
4. if you are queried about your ratings you can make up some other reasoning on how you got there?

I think I could get into this way of rating beers, maybe we should change to this set of rules for BrewNZ judging.

I would suggest that the Epic Armageddon IPA, based on above set of guidelines, will get 5/5 as it has a pretty awesome chill haze, and also some hop particles present.

And this thread started with just a question about appearance.

[Andrew]

Back to the Grand Master's comment ... "but a bit par for the course for a lager" - well it really depends on which course you are playing on dosn't it?
On the pommy course the glass is full to the brim - head being seen as taking space where paid for beer should be. Over the ditch in Belgium, completely the opposite and a glass without at least a third head is seen as obscene. (something we are having to deal with at the moment as the glassware we supply with our Cpt Cooker over there is proving too small - 360ml for a 330ml bottle). In Germany they like the big heads too but they also drink a lot of beer from pottery steins and therefore the apperance is not so important.
As far as rate beer goes, I initially thought that it would be quite helpful to us proffessional brewers as a way of finding out how our products are perceived by the public. And to a limited extent that is so. But the more I look at it the more I realise how little it means in real terms. For one thing, it is not the general public that are rating the beers but rather what I like to call the beer sportsmen. (including a few sheilas of course). These people are totally dedicated to the art of tasting beer and some will go to great lengths to add a few more beers to their tally. When you look through the ratings the same raters crop up time and again. Useful if you want to see how your beers compare with others in the field but after a while I somehow get the feeling that some of these people are just doing this because it is a very convenient excuse to sit down and enjoy a beer or three!
Secondly - aroma, appearance, flavour and palate are just the obvious tangibles that can be easily quantified. It dosn't matter how highly a beer has scored, if one is consuming it in an undesirable situation of if it has a crap image / reputation or if you have approached it with great expectations - it's going to go down. What I'm saying is that there is a lot more to how one perceives a product than just its physical attributes. I know that the beersports would probably disagree, but I think most people would prefer to drink an average beer in a great situation with good freinds having a good time than to shed tears into a fantastic beer. (I guess that there is always the hope that the beer may be good enough to cease the tears)

So my advise Luke - don't fret. Stick to your guns and let the raters have their sport!

[Stu McKinlay]

Spot on Andrew. I agree totally. There is certainly a "sport" in trying to add as many beers as you can to the list. I don't bother picking up beers that I don't think are worth a mention.

And I'd also add: you really can't beat sales as an indicator of your performance.

However, I agree with Sam's sentiment too. In the end, how much does it Epic Lager say "drink me" when lined up next to another beer? Put it next to Monk's Habit and I'll reach for the amber beer every time.

I enjoy drinking beer with friends the most but I also enjoy drinking it alone and taking notes (or note) - it helps me remember how beers change over time, and which beers I have really loved and should keep an eye out for. It helps me think about which beers to recommend to people.

A few years ago I thought I'd like to be a beer judge. Now I have no desire at all. I'm still very interested in styles, because I still have a lot to learn about beer, but I'm totally hedonistic when it comes to "rating" beer.

[Sam Possenniskie (TGM)]

Geez, you boys make me think I would have been better to sit this out on the sideline. I guess when you are making the beer you are going to take this more personally, something I hope to experience very soon as well.

I'm also a sucker for punishment, so here goes...

My reply to you boys is that I feel you are expecting more science to this how rating thing than really applies. Ratings aren't meant to be judging, there are far too many variables involved - not least each individuals personal preferences and idiosyncrasies. I first got into ratebeer.com as it was a great way to share with my good mate Stu what beers I was drinking overseas and what he was drinking back home. Now, it's true it has become a bit of a sport, but I love beer and I love trying lots of different beers.

On the appearance thing, I think you have mis-read me Luke - or maybe I haven't communicated it well enough (I am trying to translate what is going on in my head to type, which is never easy). I said that I go from the starting point of 3/5 for all beers, and then increase or decrease that if I think there are factors in the beer (any beer) that I think warrant that. This could be a number of different factors. Yes, a golden lager will struggle to tease me into a higher rating, though this isn;t nearly always the case.

Yes, I gave Emerson Pilsner a 5/5 - though I will place the caveat that I made this rating some time ago. But reading my comments, I obviously like its hue of gold and also that the head is very persistent. If you wanted to get scientific about it (which I can assure you I wouldn't have been), maybe those two factors gave it the extra two marks. Correspondingly, I obviously don't think the hue or the head of Epic Lager warrants similar rating. All subjective of course, and I guess this is a significant difference between "rating" and "judging".

"if you are queried about your ratings you can make up some other reasoning on how you got there?" Not sure where this comes from, but the important message from me is that rating beer for me is a lot about having fun. If there are some inconsistencies and lack of logic to those ratings, put this down to the hazard of having rated nearly 1400 beers and that the nature of an alcoholic drink probably doesn't lend itself well to strict scientific application.

Probably haven't help with any of the confusion, but isn't this why beer is so brilliant, you can talk about and debate it for hours.

Luke, I've even got a bottle of Epic Lager in store now. I'll enjoy it soon and see if it can tempt me to rerate. But don't worry what I've got to say, a "sportsman" like me probably isn't your target market anyway. But I've done a good job of converting by boss, who is now stocking the beer fridge at work with Epic Lager rather than Steinlager Pure (though I ensure he gets some Epic Pale Ale to keep me happy). And that should be better feedback on your beer than The GrandMaster's incoherent ramblings :o)

Sam