Dave Witzel > wrote in
46.128:

> ...while Ratebeer has the ticker mentality run rampant; cogent,
> thoughtful reviews of beers are pretty much frowned upon

Your last comment is a bit backwards; if anything, the reviewers that
write longer (either more poetic or technically descriptive) reviews tend
to get a lot more credit and "props" from fellow members in the forums.

But RateBeer has a ton of stats available (unlike BA), which can lead to
some users pursuing number-goals beyond just the total number of beers
they've tried. In some cases that can lead to ticking, but certainly not
as a rule.

> from the boards and the most prolific tickers.

Not all high-volume raters are tickers. Be careful about using that term
as a blanket statement. Ticking = little to no notes, i.e., more focus
is on the person than the beer. But if reviewing beer is a big part of
one's life, it's easy to accumulate a lot of ratings even if one spends a
lot of time evaluating every beer and takes decent notes. There aren't
that many true tickers on RateBeer (or BA as far as I know), since both
sites enforce minimum description requirements and take action when that
policy is abused.

> wealth of reviews that get posted from a single bottle of the rare
> beer of the moment (think 20+ reviews from one bomber),

You're exaggerating a bit there (even in shared-bottle situations, it's
rare for people to take less than 3 or 4 ounces, so even in extreme cases
you'd not get more than 6 or 7 people on a single bomber), but this is
certainly an issue that gets argued. Even more controversial is rating
from single 1-oz samples at GABF. The question comes down to "how large
of a sample size, and how many of them, does it take to get a 'good'
rating?" The answers range between both extremes, and is different for
every person you ask. How much it takes is for the individual rater to
decide for him/herself. So the aggregate scores are from all sorts of
sample sizes...from single small pours to entire bottles or draught pints
to six packs over a period of days or weeks. Plus a lot of users of these
ratings sites use them primarily as their own personal log...they don't
necessarily see it as important to compare their notes with others, but
just want a reliable place to store them.

> gauge the "best beer" ratings; either could be used to gauge what
> the tickers are lining up for, however.

Not really. Again, it's not about the tickers. What you mainly end up
with on the "top" lists are a bunch of full-throttle beers that are bold,
hoppy, etc. (Impy stouts, barleywines, DIPAs, etc.). It's not a
tickers' top list, it's a list of the boldest beers with the sexiest,
most aggressive aromas/flavors. Beers like pilsners, bitters, dunkels,
etc. don't make the lists very often. And it's certainly a fine argument
to say that's a bad thing. But you can't look at any aggregate rating
and argue too much, because it is effectively made by the majority of
your peers. Just because the majority may vote for a particular candiate
(ahem) doesn't mean it's the "best" choice, but it certainly does reflect
the people around you. What you take or leave from that information is
entirely up to you.

Cheers,
Ern