…who write glowing reviews of terrible macro beer? What do they gain from this? Is this a request from on high at Molson Coors or Budweiser’s executive board of directors to create an account on RateBeer and write unconvincing 5/5 summations of their average lagers, which don’t affect the overall score and generally aren’t read by many people? Just find it a bit baffling.
This rating is of Carling https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/carling-original-lager/94160/
And who found it helpful?! Nectar of the gods, who knew it was Carling (was) Black Label
Wow, and I thought I was giving that to high score when I in my kindness rated it to 2.0 when I tasted it.
Probably another one of these pop-up jokes, in rating a few beer good and then just never seen again.
Have the same question about people who seem to trash KBBS. Seems to be only ticks though.
Problem with that is ticks count in the average score (also effects score of beers that people give 1 to showing they have it in stock), that’s why it makes no difference to change poor ratings to ticks.
Lots of people like macro lager and have their favourites. They feel these beers are sneered at by us ridiculous snobs who don’t understand having a good time necking a few frothy quieties with mates, so supply compensatory appreciative scores. Also, @scholesy is a (presumably English) rugby player in Luxembourg who is at university but can’t spell for shit. So alcohol, loneliness, clinging to a bullshit camaraderie as a substitute for emotional maturity and head injuries are all likely factors.
If you check tick vs rate ratio for KBBS you’ll notice it’s unusually high. And avg rate of those ticks is unusually low.
I like this reasoning.
I also want to sit on your couch for an hour a week.