I was out and about in Madison, WI and kept finding issue after issue, multiple entries, people checking into the wrong beers, etc etc.
I realized, though, that I tend to use Untappd out and about, on the town, checking into beers quickly, whereas I tend to sit down and enter my RB ratings and do admin work at a computer/tablet, take my time.
I realized it’s never going to be in my best interest socially to stop talking to my friends and family and start reporting Untappd beer issues… and I don’t care enough to take note of it and submit bugs later. So we’ll see.
It’s actually 10% difference of ABV in ratebeer, but it is not a strict rule and is often down to local admin decision (unless it’s a huge difference). For example: Finland changed the law so supermarkets may now sell 5.5% beers instead of 4.7%, hence many brewers also changed their beers from 4.7% to 5.5%. Although it is more than 10% difference, Finnish admins decided to do it case by case. In those cases where the only change was ABV change, no new entry was added and ABV of the old entry was changed.
The admin guide actually says that cask entry in ratebeer is valid only, if the non-cask version is pasteurized. It may be also in otherwise different (different ABV is also very common). Obviously this means the difference is not just “serving style”… At least that’s the idea.
I’m a little annoyed/confused by flagging duplicates. I tried to flag Bud Select 2019, an obviously stupid and pointless duplicate, and it won’t let me. It says “one is a vintage so we can’t merge them.”
So I proposed an edit, put “this should be deleted” in the title and added in notes it was a stupid duplicate.
I want to flag Toppling Goliath Fire, Skulls, and Money 2018 and 2019 as well but it won’t let me, same reason.
Because those breweries have opted NOT to have fake vintages merged. I know, it’s retarded, it pisses us off too. Most macro breweries are like this. As far as I know the only one who has opted in is Heineken.
As for TG that’s odd, they also have not opted in for it, yet they seem to otherwise manage their account well.
I just hope one day we’ll be able to mass delete all fake vintages but I can’t see it happening any time soon.
EDIT: Just realised ABInBev actually are opted in to merging and the 2019 appears to be gone now? Looks like users still aren’t able to propose merges where vintages are concerned though. Not sure if intentional or a bug, I shall ask.
At the very least you should only allow vintages where the year is marked, or it’s otherwise obvious. And, where the brewery doesn’t specify the year, it seems a bit daft to list different years when the beer is in regular, year-round production. Maybe where it’s a once a year release.
Are we untappd now? Why would it matter if the exact vintage of a beer is known, if there is no difference in recipe, why would we have a different listing. This will create a nightmare. I guess we are not going to do alias any more?
Yep, myself and pretty much everyone else I’ve spoken to feels the same way but it seems to be the one rule they’re not keen on changing for some reason.
I’ve come to the conclusion that a beer website cannot be a beer website unless it has at least one completely illogical and unpopular rule.
This is indeed the guideline - you’re only supposed to add it as a Vintage when it’s marked as such with a date. Sadly, tick-hungry numpties ignore the guidelines…
