As @nilsaspointed out, the styles numbers don’t seem to add up on the my styles page of your profile. While there are apparently 123 to rate, the other number on the top right varies - mine says 126 and @Nilsas has 128. So, what do you guys think the ghost styles are?
Clay Sumerian pot-aged traditional ale?
Stank aged pumpkin beers infected with ghostly bretta that wasn’t meant to be there?
Wax-sealed overpriced stout?
So it looks like there were some hardcoded styles to avoid in the query that generates that number. I’ve updated the query as some of the non beer styles have changed/been added, etc and they were missed. It will also now handle any future changes.
The numbers should now be correct and reflect number of beer styles.
Thank you it now makes more sense. There maybe an element of inconsistency though thinking about it:
Ratings - include ciders, mead and sake products
Breweries - I’m 99% sure include cideries. Not sure on Sake and mead producers
Countries - I’ve not tested this but If my first rate from a new country was a non-beer would it count as a new country?
Styles - therefore is styles the only category that relates just to beer? If so does it really matter? Not sure I’m that bothered as its quite easy to see the other 22 styles separately. but just throwing it out there for peoples thoughts.
The MY PROFILE summary includes: Ratings: includes all kinds of beverages Breweries includes Cideries, Meaderies and Sakes producers Styles: includes only Beer styles on the summary and all other kinds of beverages are crammed together
I wouldn’t waste too much time on that if you plan to port this to new format (Like the MY YEAR IN BEER)…In the meantime I would simply correct the summary title from STYLE to BEER STYLE to remove the ambiguity, OR keep it named STYLE and includes all beverage styles, which would make more sense with the rest of the summary.
you could also take the time to correct the other summary titles to:
TICKS to QUICK RATINGS
FOLLOWING: to BREWERIES FOLLOWED
FRIENDS to PEOPLE FOLLOWED
I see what you mean, those would be more accurate. But at the same time, they are wordier and more jargony. I think the current wording on those three is fine. But then again, I’m a science journalist whose job is to break down jargon and make things widely comprehensible, so I may be biased.