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
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.
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.
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 at 1:53 pm