How can the real average score be so low for the #1 beer of the world (2018)?
The 158 reviews out of 1036 ratings (the only who count for the weighted average) must be way higher than rest of the ratings in order to achieve that…
https://www.ratebeer.com/user/694281/
https://www.ratebeer.com/user/614221/
https://www.ratebeer.com/user/592042/
https://www.ratebeer.com/user/686049/
https://www.ratebeer.com/user/668044/
https://www.ratebeer.com/user/669046/
https://www.ratebeer.com/user/675368/
https://www.ratebeer.com/user/685311/
https://www.ratebeer.com/user/322893/ - my favorite, gave it a 0.2 (!!!)
https://www.ratebeer.com/user/652519/
https://www.ratebeer.com/user/651434/
https://www.ratebeer.com/user/602364/
https://www.ratebeer.com/user/134042/
That’s just looking at the first few pages. Wanna bet how many of these actually had the beer?
And that’s why, folks, we warned against ticks counting. And now someone less friendly will note that and everyone’ll have a field day with RB yet again.
4 Likes
Or worse, they won’t even bother.
Wonder how the scores would change if we actually, say, didn’t let ticks count for people with less than 20 ticks, or even more really, say you have to make 100 ticks+ratings for ticks to count? That would almost immediately remove the score dumpers, or at least make it annoying as hell for them, which is necessary if RBLLC’s policy now is to put tick-infested scores up front for all to see.
Whoever thought this wouldn’t happen… or somebody doesn’t really give a fuck that the scores are messed up.
Tick should count when a user is somehow verified: minimum tick counts under at least 5 different brewers, email address + region entered in the user profile…
Reviews don’t even count under 10… ticks should be way higher…50 at least…
And like I said, MANY TICKS are probably cellar ticks (HAVE, HAD or WANT) since the cellar option is broken
