Maybe RB will just be the repository for the ultimate beer snobs

OK, I understand the theory. But prefer the miserable rater one.

How come dices dont work in your case? You have 3748 rates among which 64 4.5+. Phil and solidfunk have 13and 30k+ rates combined.

I think I have to agree with that.
I think that using the 5 attributes score is reducing the higher/lower score range because 1 or 2 “bad/average” attribute scores reduce the overall score of the beer…even if the Overall attribute Score is high.

That doesn’t mean people are snobbing beers with lower scores than those on UT. On UT people scores are just pure Overall score.

I myself is a perfect example of this trend…I got almost nothing in the 0-5-1.5 and 4.5 to 5.0 ranges…

I’m probably a miserable rater. I’ve given 5/5 on look and palate, but I don’t think every on the other three categories. Maybe once, say.

Independence is a very strong assumption. There is no way it applies to RateBeer attributes.

@solidfunk:
Avg Score Given 3.27
Avg Beer Rated 3.4

@fatphil:
Avg Score Given 2.88
Avg Beer Rated 3.12

me:
Avg Score Given 3.46
Avg Beer Rated 3.44

On the one hand, I have been a little more selective on what I rate. On the other hand, I was indeed less grumpy.

2 Likes

Yes, that is also a factor. I took it in account some time ago when I did this

haha, ya. :face_with_symbols_over_mouth::face_with_symbols_over_mouth::face_with_symbols_over_mouth:

:+1:

1 Like

~15 years ago, I decided on what the 0-5 scale meant to me. As I started on RB, I even wrote down a list of what the scores 1-10/1-5 meant to me, and I’ve been brutally consistent. If my review seems to be mostly those keywords, it gets that score. One of the things I designed in from the start was that middling beers would get middling scores, namely 2.7-2.8. So my keywords for total score would be along the lines of: 2.6=dull/poor, 2.8=vaguely adequate, 3.0=adequate 3.2=decent, 3.4=good, 3.6=very good, 3.8=excellent, 4.0=wow (or other lack of words). Some people seem to be about 0.5 higher for each of those classes, that’s their choice, whatever works for them.

My words-numbers mapping may not have changed, but some parts of my tastes have. I used to bury lagers as I never found anything interesting in them, but I’m now learning to appreciate them, and am giving them slightly higher scores. So the first few thousand were a bit unlucky, but I can’t rerate them all.

2 Likes

I don’t understand this. Why would you want to middle scores? Why not set 4.6-5.0=wow?

Cdy+1,,yyy<>/__

I cannot believe I’m being asked why I would want the middle of the range of inputs to map onto the middle of the range of outputs.

But if you’re asking, it’s because I want the middle of the range of inputs to map onto the middle of the range of outputs.

1 Like

Yes and no and yes and no…
What makes UT reliable is… It is reliable. Not in a score or review wise, ohh satan in Trump pants no (thou I and you even know guises and grls who write serious reviews in UT), but in search speed and accuracy, places and breweries taking care of their own abominations etc. To snob consumer, as we are, super duper handy. Common sense helps to swim around anomalies of UT thou.
In comparison RB has gone from bad to worse for me with every update. I have tried to use RB on my trips, but if search takes 20 secs vs 1 there is smth done wrong. Constant disconnection when Wi-Fi is low etc think of all the common problems you hit when travelling on budget and RB fails for me. I hope it’s gonna change, but I can’t see it. Ericks app had the best feature ever, offline rating, the most coolest idea ever, and most short sightedly it was killed by… add your own words here… Stupid act after stupid act after… Ohh fck I turned into rantPhil I better stop here :slight_smile:

4 Likes

Yeah maybe I’m asking the obvious. Seems in your case it’s just skewed rating system due to some mathematician OCD mumbo jumbo.

3 Likes

Must say I have never heard of this before, over complicated, but fair enough and each to their own I suppose. That aside I now tend to ignore some raters on certain styles, i.e constantly giving 3.2 scores or something to great IPAs, I guess they don’t like the style, for me, if you don’t, then don’t bother to drink it.

2 Likes

I’ve also noticed there are some users which tend to drink loads of certain style (hazy ipa) and bash them because they don’t like the style and all of those hazy ipas are same. Seems like masochism to me, but hey to each his own.

Hey! I resemble that remark!

I was at a well-respected brewpub recently, and every single IPA was cloudy. Of course I grabbed the sampler tray, rated them all, and hated them all, there were no decent IPAs to tick.

2 Likes

Had Craig in mind when I was writing that, but I’m not surprised there are more like him :smiley:

There’s a silver lining to the murky grey cloud of NEIPAs - old-school west coast IPAs now taste more delicious than ever!

I am on RB and BA, not on untapped. The primary problem I have with the RB ratings is the fact that I have added dozens of beers here, and rated dozens more with minimal rankings. These beers default to a low 3 cumulative rating, even if one or several persons have rated the beer 4 +. On BA, the beer rating published is the average period, be it 1, 10, 100 or 1000 users. Here, all beers are listed in the low 3s without many ratings, hard to judge a range of beers from new brewers or local brewers with not many RB raters without clicking each and every beer to see additional details.The average should be the same for all beers, but I agree a minimal threshold of reviews should required for any Top XXX lists.

I find BA ratings useful overall and RB ratings useful for widely consumed beers. I only go to untapped if a local brewer or bar/store has their tap availability listed, never for ratings.

3 Likes