What are the ghost styles on RB?

As @nilsas pointed 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?

All of these should be new styles IMHO.

1 Like

I think users that have never rated a cider, mead or sake don’t have this issue but I’m happy to be corrected.

I reckon its a simple case of some of these styles being included in the total and others not.

In my case I think Apple Cider - Flavoured and Apple Cider - Hopped count as styles. Whereas just Apple Cider and mead do not. Makes no sense! Either they should all be included or none at all.

My Ratings says I got 129 STYLES TOTAL (not specifically mentioned BEER STYLES so they are not wrong there):
123 beer styles
10 non-beer styles (4 ciders, 4 meads, 2 perry)

so obviously those numbers don’t fit.

I don’t know if " Unknown / Will Be Reclassified still count or not, but it was supposed to be corrected in the past not to show.

My guess is that right now, they forgot to add either Meads (4) or Ciders (4) styles to the grand total which would bring my 123 + 4 + 4 + 2 to 133 instead of 129. @services

Nilsas has 128 total
123 beer styles
17 non-beer styles (4 ciders, 4 meads, 2 perries, 7 sakes)

so sake styles would also not be counted with the rest, along with either ciders or meads…@services

Ya it must be just counting ciders and maybe the unknown. Would make sense. I’m 121 beers plus four ciders and probably the mystery ghost section. Definitely a clay pot aged beer in my case

@nilsas, @solidfunk, @Viper666.Qc and @dragnet101,

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.

Services @ RateBeer


Yes. thanks, looks good now. Been off way too long.

1 Like

Thanks, look much better.
Keep up fixing instead of adding new fuctionality that creates more bugs.

1 Like

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.

Number bar for reference:


Though I’d still like to see that Sumerian clay pot aged ale is the real secret ghost style here, unlocked only after a series of impossible ratings.


@dragnet101 You raise a great point… should the summary be inclusive of everything available on RateBeer?

@joet This is something we should probably have a think about. Consistency whether we have summaries just about beer, or about all styles available on RateBeer.

1 Like

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:


1 Like

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.