At some stage Horal’s Oude Geuze Mega Blend years started getting their own entries. (Rightly, in my view). That leaves 706 ratings under the now retired, yearless entry. The description for the yearless entry (sensibly) says:
Note: This general entry is kept only for historical reasons, since it would be impossible to manually separate the ratings. New ratings should go to the vintage versions.
Note 2: In 2021 it was decided to create separate entry for each vintage, because it is easier for rb users, the vintages are easy to identify and the members of HORAL change over time (so it is not exactly the same from year to year).
Historically ratebeer has kept only one entry for every vintage. The idea was that every Mega Blend was the same product even if the vintage was different. Think about 3 Fonteinen Oude Geuze for example: different batches contain lambic from different producers in different proportions, but they are not separate products.
My rating states the year. Indeed, of the first page of 15 most recent ratings, 8 appear to state the year. Are we encouraged or discouraged from moving our own ratings? I will take “get a life” as indifference.
If the rating under consideration is appropriately known as to year, one should save the admins any trouble. They are ever busy and hopefully very appreciated.
PS. If 2009 was the first version, then either the 2009 entry is redundant or the “generic” one should have an “unknown vintage” in the name and be made unrateable IMO.
Or, rather, as there are a couple of hundred 2009 ratings that can only be 2009 ratings at least, I would keep the original entry as 2009 and move “undecided” ratings to an unrateable “unknown vintage” entry. While we’re at it. What do you think?
I think both solutions are fine, and the one with less admin work should be chosen. I also agree that at this point generic entry should not be rateable anymore.
Alright, now that I’ve cleared out the very obvious ones… (got things down to 465 Ratings 366 Reviews) let me do some tagging:
@SinH4 - you can split up your rating in 2009 and 2015
Jorn69 - 2011 and 2015 @Saeglopur and @Werckmeister 2013 and 2017 @mabel could split up 2009 and 2011
Sten - 2009 and 2013 @jercraigs 2011 and 2013 I guess @Beersiveknown 2013, 2015, 2017 @_angst 2009 and 2011 @laiti 2009 and 2011 @fatphil 2011 and 2015 @j12601 2009 and 2011
dnstone 2009, 2011, 2019
First off, apologies to those thoroughly and truly done and out and/or who give no fucks, that’s completely understood - I’ve tagged all for convenience’s sake, feel free to ignore this.
If you have 2009, then you can split things yourselves. If you have other combos, edit out (and review) the more recent one and ping me to move the older one.
Some other things may help - such as which vintage was available at @fonefan 's early 2012 tasting and if the one @gunnar , @Sigmund and @abemorsten had from Etre Gourmet was 2011 or 2009 - but those are just details.
Jeezes - I can’t even FIND Horal Megablend when I search for it now - this might be due to RateBeer being a partly dysfunctional website these days. Could you give me a link?
Thanks. I would assume that the vintage Gunnar, abemorsten and I
shared in 2012 was the 2011, but I can’t be 100% certain about that, as my brain cells might have been slightly damaged by a few thousand beers which have run through me since then …
I’m nearly positive that @radagast83 's rating there is 2013 as he was probably part of that tasting and drank the same one shared by @Travlr as me and @GenDV138
