- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: beer advocates top 100 beers of 2012
Posted on 1/9/13 at 12:38 pm to Geauxld Finger
Posted on 1/9/13 at 12:38 pm to Geauxld Finger
quote:
This is a crock of shite and exemplifies everything i dislike about Beer Advocate.
These rankings should be for beers that are actually bottled whether it be year round or seasonal.
What exactly does it exemplify?
Should rare beers not be rated on their site?
quote:
I don't know why but fanaticism over beers like this just kind of piss me off. Most of those rankings are inflated for trading purposes many times. People review it if its local to drive up the rating, get it pub, so people want to trade for it.
People are naturally going to be homers. But you think people are deliberately over-rating beers for that purpose?
I guess we missed the bus on Abita.
quote:
How many different versions of the Hunuaphu's stout from cigar city can you have? There is like 4 up there. Its one of the main reasons i got away from BA.
It's BA's fault that they make 4 versions of it?
quote:
and there are now WAY TO frickING MANY bourbon barrel, wine barrel, maple infused, bacon cured, super yeast fermented, double chocolate, bat shite coffee roasted, super hop strain, and spice infused beers. make something simple and make it right. no need for all this crap.
If that's what people like... then what's the problem?
1
Posted on 1/9/13 at 1:52 pm to urinetrouble
quote:
What exactly does it exemplify?
Should rare beers not be rated on their site?
It's not that they shouldn't be rated. But the sample size is by and large small on the grand scale. It dilutes a "rating system" per se.
It's like Bo Jackson. Albeit one of the greatest athletes of all time, will never be in the hall of fame. his sample size is too small to accredit it
quote:
People are naturally going to be homers. But you think people are deliberately over-rating beers for that purpose?
I guess we missed the bus on Abita.
People definitely do this. I recall a few years back a very small west coast brewery released something and it was nothing special yet all the ratings were high, and all were from BA's trying to used it as trade bait. Can't recall the exact beer, it was about 4 years ago.
quote:
It's BA's fault that they make 4 versions of it?
Not at all, I just think it becomes kinda stupid to that point. If one is doing a "Top 100" they shouldn't be admitted imo.
quote:
If that's what people like... then what's the problem?
That's fine. I just think there is too much of it. It's like paying $28 for a 750ml of Brooklyn Black Ops. I can name you about 10 other stouts for 1/2 to 1/3 the price that I would rate higher. I find it to be more of a "it's barrel aged so its special" = better beer kind of issue. It's like everyone is just trying to be really weird instead of just striving for quality beer.
This post was edited on 1/9/13 at 1:53 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News