RateBeer Forums

Create new evaluation method

the evaluation method should be made objective. the evaluation criterion should be improved by trying to eliminate the subjective evaluation as much as possible and imposing the objective one: the site should associate the numbers with the objective values. For example, the number 6 corresponds to “good”, 7 to “extremely good”, 3 to “very bad” and so on. This is because each person can have a different evaluation criterion than the others. Ratebeer should eliminate this and create a single evaluation criterion for all.

The problem is that things are still relative (also relative regionally I should add). I know that some people set forth their own criteria, as you did above, in their profiles. That said there is a range of what people consider a 7 to be. Not sure if RB imposing from up on high would do much to change the minds pf people who used one number to mean something for years… I admittedly rate towards the middle (i.e., a miserable rater as some people on this site have noted) and it is hard for me to break out of it as any new ratings I post I aim to keep within same standards as I have held in the past for comparative purposes.

Welcome to the site, thexman. You are mistaken in a number of ways, several of which concern what “objective” means.

  1. User ratings are ordinal, not cardinal. There is no reason to suppose that a beer rated 2 by me is half as good as a beer rated 4 by me. Or that such a notion is coherent. It’s just a ranking. That in any case has nothing to do with objectivity.
  2. Ratings are not interpersonally comparable. You could normalise ratings to force everyone’s rating distributions to have the same mean as beers rated, but this - whilst it might be handy to compare who scores what sorts of things higher - wouldn’t be a more objective standard, it would simply mean everyone’s subjectivity counted in the same way.
  3. “Good”, “enjoyable” and “bad” are not objective criteria. They are evaluations of personal experience. I suppose you could stick a rater in a MRI machine and see what parts of their brain light up and by how much when they sup a hote gold, but that is probably beyond the budget here. You could describe beers by their objective characteristics: this beer has a certain SRM, IBUs, specific gravity, acidity etc - but that does not describe a drinker’s experience of it. That’s inherently subjective.
  4. You could evaluate beers according to how well they fit a style. This is to mistake a mere convenient classification system (beers made in this way/ beers made in this region) as imposing rather than describing its contents.

[edit] Probably this comes across a mite curmudgeonly. Sorry. I do agree that people should try to be consistent in how they rate.

As I recall, the rating system here (as opposed to a beer judging system) is based on hedonism. The rating is supposed to express enjoyability. Enjoyability cannot be reduced to a standard system because we, each and every one, differ from one another.

1 Like

Taste ratings are subjective by nature. No way i can post a good review of a sour wild ale, i just don’t like them.

Even so, if you were specific about taste/mouthfeel/etc. with why you didn’t like it, it would be a worthy review.





Add To RateBeer

Add A Beer
Add A Brewer
Add A Place
Add An Event


Manage Your Account

Add Premium
Edit Profile
Messages
Sign out

RateBeer Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter, RateBeer Weekly, a must for understanding new people, places and beers in worldwide craft culture.


Stay Connected


2000- 2017 © RateBeer, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service