Ratebeer v. Beer Advocate

Which do you reckon is better?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?

TIA

"John Frum" > wrote in message
. com...
> Ratebeer v. Beer Advocate
>
> Which do you reckon is better?

Better for what? Beer ratings? Pub listings? Witty banter? Self-aggrandizing
ownership and obnoxious self-promotion?

Read both. Go with which one you like. Neither is better than the other for
anything, other than your own personal preference.

-Steve

On 2007-07-21, John Frum > wrote:
> Ratebeer v. Beer Advocate

Neither one of them is worth one good beer for yourself.

nb

I use them both. I just want to cataloge the brews I've tried, helps me
remember what I tasted when I tried that beer and whether or not I'd like to
revisit it. They (like anyone or anything) may mis-categorize a particular
drink (or just not put it in the category we think it belongs). And yes one
of the sites owners has developed a big head; but I tend to not let those
things get in the way of a useful tool. I like being able to break it down
for myself, maybe I'll be wondering just what are my favorite IPA's or which
Imperial Stout didn't curl my teeth...too many brews out there to remember
them all...Each rating system has it's benefits; you'll just have to decide
which one works better for what you want to use it for...

BEER ADVOCATE WEIGHTING
appearance = 20%
smell = 20%
taste = 40%
mouthfeel = 10%
drinkability = 10%


RATEBEER WEIGHTING
Aroma
20%
Appearance
10%
Flavor
20%
Palate
10%
Overall impression
40%


so you can see. some catgories have different weigted values. and some
catgories cross over, some do not...Me, personally, if I had to drop one and
keep one...I'd probably stay with ratebeer. It's easier to tell between the
overall rating and the STYLE rating. The thing is to not let any rating
produced by the site to change how you really feel about a beer.

John Frum put down his beer long enough to post:

> Ratebeer v. Beer Advocate
>
> Which do you reckon is better?
>
> What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?
>
> TIA
>

Beer Advocate has better forums, articles, etc.

Ratebeer has better and more complete ratings.

--
*** ERROR: OUT OF BEER ***

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:40:27 +0100, John Frum >
wrote:

>Ratebeer v. Beer Advocate
>
>Which do you reckon is better?
>
>What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?
>
>TIA
Well I think its simple, i have a magazine subscription with
beeradvocate, and I use beeradvocate to post my opinions becuase its
free, you can post on ratebeer but to see lists you need prem sub and
12.95 a year, which is not much but is too much just to see rankings
of beers IMHO.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:00:52 -0400, steve >
wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:40:27 +0100, John Frum >
>wrote:
>
>>Ratebeer v. Beer Advocate
>>
>>Which do you reckon is better?
>>
>>What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?
>>
>>TIA
>Well I think its simple, i have a magazine subscription with
>beeradvocate, and I use beeradvocate to post my opinions becuase its
>free, you can post on ratebeer but to see lists you need prem sub and
>12.95 a year, which is not much but is too much just to see rankings
>of beers IMHO.
well some lists require premium and some don't, but I believe forums
require sub, anyway beer advocate is better for me.

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:40:27 +0100, John Frum wrote
(in message > ):

> Ratebeer v. Beer Advocate
>
> Which do you reckon is better?
>
> What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?
>
> TIA
>

Thanks everyone.

What I really want to know is which is more authoratative in its
ratings.

This is all part of reasearch I am doing for a book on US breweries.

Paul Arthur wrote:
> On 2007-07-23, Tim > wrote:
>
>>> What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?
>> What I really want to know is which is more authoratative in its
>> ratings.
>
> They are both equally authoritative: that is to say, not at all.

Neither is trying to be authoritative. The reviews on each are by the public
with diverging tastes. It's up to the reader/site user to decide on trying a
beer based on reviews and rankings.

"Doppelbock" > schreef in bericht
. 102...
> John Frum put down his beer long enough to post:
>
>> Ratebeer v. Beer Advocate
>>
>> Which do you reckon is better?
>>
>> What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>
> Beer Advocate has better forums, articles, etc.
>
> Ratebeer has better and more complete ratings.
>
> --
> *** ERROR: OUT OF BEER ***

Ratebeer is more complete on the beers - much more tasted, and the more as
they are non-American. The European lists on Beeradvocate present large
lacunes.

BeerAdvocate has still an edge concerning their beerfly's.

As to authorative - that is up to the (wo)man using it; you have to do the
filtering and the conclusions yourself.

I think you find that so highly subjective, Its like Westvleteren
Trappist ale, its usually rated number one in the USA, but on my many
trips to Brugge, and other Belgium beers town they don't think its
number one (polled bartenders in the 4 major beer towns).

I myself I not rated it because it varies, on my recent trip Aril
2007 the beer was different and nearly unavailable, different due to
lack of aging, I had quite a few friends in Belgium swap the new for
the old , and its funny I liked the new better, It even turned out
after many many bottles after 4 weeks there I found myself rating
Rochefort 6 at the top of my list this time. its all a long story, as
for rating USA's brewers man if I was rich and had the time what fun
that would be, though I doubt you ever be able to rank them, write a
book yes, but it would never be authoritative. some days I think Sam
Adams sucks and some day I think blue moon is killer, sure I love all
the Belgium beer and German etc, but most normal working folk like me
cannot afford all that stuff. ratings are done my members, and it
depends how drunk they are when they rate the beers. lol joke there.
though I dont know ratebeer that well, the Alstrom bros reviews are
quite fair and balanced lol.
>
>What I really want to know is which is more authoratative in its
>ratings.
>
>This is all part of reasearch I am doing for a book on US breweries.

"steve" > wrote in message
...

>I think you find that so highly subjective, Its like Westvleteren
> Trappist ale, its usually rated number one in the USA, but on my many
> trips to Brugge, and other Belgium beers town they don't think its
> number one (polled bartenders in the 4 major beer towns).

"4 major beer towns?" Which ones would these be? Explain.
--
dgs

Tim > wrote:
>What I really want to know is which is more authoratative in its
>ratings.

Definitely ratebeer. Beer advocate has a bad case of
herd mentality and circle-jerking on the latest big bad
hard-to-get beer, and from browsing reviews seems to
have a lot more obviously ignorant people active.
--
Joel Plutchak "They're not people, they're HIPPIES!"
$LASTNAME at VERYWARMmail.com - Eric Cartman

ers (Joel) wrote on 23 Jul 2007:
> Tim > wrote:
>>What I really want to know is which is more authoratative in its
>>ratings.
>
> Definitely ratebeer. Beer advocate has a bad case of
> herd mentality and circle-jerking on the latest big bad
> hard-to-get beer, and from browsing reviews seems to
> have a lot more obviously ignorant people active.

....while Ratebeer has the ticker mentality run rampant; cogent,
thoughtful reviews of beers are pretty much frowned upon, judging
from the boards and the most prolific tickers. Considering the
wealth of reviews that get posted from a single bottle of the rare
beer of the moment (think 20+ reviews from one bomber), I think
ratebeer is equally useless.

Both sites have the herd mentality, and neither should be used to
gauge the "best beer" ratings; either could be used to gauge what
the tickers are lining up for, however.

Witzel

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:05:09 -0700, "dgs" > wrote:

>"steve" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>>I think you find that so highly subjective, Its like Westvleteren
>> Trappist ale, its usually rated number one in the USA, but on my many
>> trips to Brugge, and other Belgium beers town they don't think its
>> number one (polled bartenders in the 4 major beer towns).
>
>"4 major beer towns?" Which ones would these be? Explain.
Brugge (bar = Brugs beertje), Antwerp (bar = Kulminator), Brussels
(bar = Bier Circus), Ghent (bar = A Capella) BTW I went all over
Belgium and visited many places. those are just mine and the Author of
a Good beer Guide Belgium opinions of the "major" beer towns, mainly
based on populations. I been to Belgium 6 times in the last 8 years, I
love their beer, so I take my holidays there (vacations).

I think you will find that on any site, most of the reviewers are
fair, heck its only an option, not a beer judge expert analysis.
I drank allot of good beer, because I prefer it over the Miller lites
of the world, but even though I posted many reviews on beer on both
sites, I am no expert, if fact I tend to dislike the experts choices,
beer is just too personnel, one person hates one beer and the other
loves it. I think there both ok, but I do like the Bro's options
because they tend to match mine on beer advocate. Its funny I never
really though about which one was "better" , humm have to think about
it more.




On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:51:51 +0000 (UTC), ers (Joel)
wrote:

>Tim > wrote:
>>What I really want to know is which is more authoratative in its
>>ratings.
>
> Definitely ratebeer. Beer advocate has a bad case of
>herd mentality and circle-jerking on the latest big bad
>hard-to-get beer, and from browsing reviews seems to
>have a lot more obviously ignorant people active.

"steve" > schreef in bericht
...
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:05:09 -0700, "dgs" > wrote:
>
>>"steve" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>I think you find that so highly subjective, Its like Westvleteren
>>> Trappist ale, its usually rated number one in the USA, but on my many
>>> trips to Brugge, and other Belgium beers town they don't think its
>>> number one (polled bartenders in the 4 major beer towns).
>>
>>"4 major beer towns?" Which ones would these be? Explain.
> Brugge (bar = Brugs beertje), Antwerp (bar = Kulminator), Brussels
> (bar = Bier Circus), Ghent (bar = A Capella) BTW I went all over
> Belgium and visited many places. those are just mine and the Author of
> a Good beer Guide Belgium opinions of the "major" beer towns, mainly
> based on populations. I been to Belgium 6 times in the last 8 years, I
> love their beer, so I take my holidays there (vacations).

Hm, I agree with most of your addresses, though personally I find Bier
Circus getting way too posh: everything for the dinners and to hell with the
punters. But A Capella, come on, Gent can do a lot better. Try Waterhuis aan
de Bierkant.
A tip: try to find places outside the big towns as well. Denderleeuw (Heren
van Liedekercke), Huise (De Gans), Turnhout (De Spythigen Duvel), etc...

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

steve > wrote in
:

> you can post on ratebeer but to see lists you need prem sub
> and 12.95 a year, which is not much but is too much just to
> see rankings of beers IMHO.

The top 50 list on RateBeer is NOT for premium members only (there was a
time when it was, but it is not anymore). In fact, MOST lists are visible
by anyone, even non-members.

Cheers,
Ern

On 2007-07-24, Ernest > wrote:

> they've tried. In some cases that can lead to ticking......

what is ticking?

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.beer.]
On 2007-07-24, notbob > wrote:
> On 2007-07-24, Ernest > wrote:
>
>> they've tried. In some cases that can lead to ticking......
>
> what is ticking?

Oops! Never mind. I didn't read far enough.

nb

Paul Arthur > wrote in
om:

> Could you elaborate on that? What stats does RateBeer have that BA
> doesn't?

Though it sounds like a cop-out, it would be difficult to list all of RB's
many stats/lists, as there are so many scattered all over the site. Have a
look.

For example, every user has their own personal stats on the following:
complete rating history bar graph (by month), rating distribution (bar
graph), complete list of all beer styles one has sampled beers from (how
many of each style, average rating by each style), complete list of all
countries one has sampled beer from (how many from each country, average
rating by country), and complete list of all US states & Canadian provinces
one has sampled beer from (how many from each state/province, average
rating by state/province). Plus stats on your overall rating across all
beers, and how that stat relates to other raters of those same beers.

That's just stats for your own ratings. There are lists upon lists in the
People and Ratings sections (and subsections) of almost any conceivable
"top" or "bottom" list of users and groups and breweries and beers and
places, etc. Perhaps more than the casual user is interested in on a daily
or even monthly basis, and there's indeed so much that it sometimes can be
difficult to find where a particular obscure stat is located. But there's
quite a stat/list glut on RB...whether that's good or bad is up to the user
to decide.

Cheers,
Ern

Ernest > wrote on 24 Jul 2007:
> 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.

There are two sets of people on both sites: tickers, and people who
have the taste buds and grey matter to write cogently on the
thousands of beers they've had over the years. Ratebeer is set up
to encourage "ticking", and threads in their forums/groups of them
at beer events tend to foster that mindset.

Of course not all prolific reviewers are tickers, but when one has
seen, firsthand, the ticking ways, it's harder to take the site
seriously. And I kind of *like* Ratebeer.

(next section deleted as it, on further review, reinforces what I
wrote anyway)

>> 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.

When I see multiple dozens of reviews based on the same growler of
a beer -- and this is easy to track when you tie it to an event,
such as Dark Lord Day -- or when you see a gathering of seven or
eight huddled around pints of beer shared at a table at a Pizza
Port event or a bar hosting a day of beers not normally available
in the area... you tend to draw conclusions.

Again, naturally, there are those, undoubtedly like yourself, who
take thoughtful notes when the situation presents itself and don't
whip out the notepad every time they go out.

>> 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.

It's a herd mentality, in many cases. Scores appear to be defined
by, well, what you said plus the difficulty in obtaining the beer.
Someone, or some brewery, develops a reputation, so therefore every
beer put out in limited release automatically becomes the best beer
since Jim Cibak created the universe. Some awful messes get ranked
really, really highly due to the difficulty and/or expense of
obtaining them. It's distressingly obvious, and a big reason why
any set of rankings will always always always need to be taken with
a big ol' salt lick.

But I doubt I'm bursting anyone's bubble here.

Witzel

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:07:08 GMT, "Joris Pattyn"
> wrote:

>
>"steve" > schreef in bericht
.. .
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:05:09 -0700, "dgs" > wrote:
>>
>>>"steve" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>I think you find that so highly subjective, Its like Westvleteren
>>>> Trappist ale, its usually rated number one in the USA, but on my many
>>>> trips to Brugge, and other Belgium beers town they don't think its
>>>> number one (polled bartenders in the 4 major beer towns).
>>>
>>>"4 major beer towns?" Which ones would these be? Explain.
>> Brugge (bar = Brugs beertje), Antwerp (bar = Kulminator), Brussels
>> (bar = Bier Circus), Ghent (bar = A Capella) BTW I went all over
>> Belgium and visited many places. those are just mine and the Author of
>> a Good beer Guide Belgium opinions of the "major" beer towns, mainly
>> based on populations. I been to Belgium 6 times in the last 8 years, I
>> love their beer, so I take my holidays there (vacations).
>
>Hm, I agree with most of your addresses, though personally I find Bier
>Circus getting way too posh: everything for the dinners and to hell with the
>punters. But A Capella, come on, Gent can do a lot better. Try Waterhuis aan
>de Bierkant.
>A tip: try to find places outside the big towns as well. Denderleeuw (Heren
>van Liedekercke), Huise (De Gans), Turnhout (De Spythigen Duvel), etc...
>
oh that was NOT ment to be a list of places i thought was the best,
just a list of 4 cities, i hit most of the bars listed in beerfly and
Tim webb's book, that was more of a momery of bartenders that i met
that were willing to have long chats about thier favorites beers. I
find you right about outside the big towns, but sadly i found if you
rent a car you must stay near each one of those towns, as drinking and
driving is stupid, I like staying in big cities just more to do, then
I take trains or buses to the out lying areas. Don;t get me wrong i
logged my miles in a car, but it sucks like you go to the verge to
drink wests and your so hammered you cannot leave the parking lot.

Dave Witzel > wrote in
46.128:

> thousands of beers they've had over the years. Ratebeer is set up
> to encourage "ticking", and threads in their forums/groups of them
> at beer events tend to foster that mindset.

I don't know that I'd agree with the "set up to encourage" part. I don't
think RB *or* BA are encouraging anything beyond enjoyment of beer and
the rating hobby itself. At least for RB, I can say that the people who
run the site don't do anything to promote a particular rating style,
ticking or otherwise. If the *member* discussions in the forums give you
that impression, that's not the same thing. If the plethora of stats on
RB give you that impression, I would disagree as I happen to know the
guys who put all those lists together are simply stat geeks and just
enjoy that stuff for the sake of it...if that has resulted in lower-
quality ratings for the pursuit of collecting stats, that was certainly
not the intent.

> Of course not all prolific reviewers are tickers, but when one has
> seen, firsthand, the ticking ways, it's harder to take the site
> seriously. And I kind of *like* Ratebeer.

I've seen the "ticking ways" first hand quite often, and with some
exceptions I can't say I have a particularly bad impression of it. You
learn to ignore some raters who don't put in the effort. But I don't
really think small-ish samples are the main problem...it's raters who
don't pay attention or take much time to study the beer (or are very
easily swayed by hype or others' opinions). And bigger samples aren't
going to help folks like that.

> by, well, what you said plus the difficulty in obtaining the beer.

That's often short-lived, though. It's happened dozens of times where
some beer gets some wild attention at first, and as more people make the
effort to find/try the beer, the ratings moderate. But then again, often
this results in a new favorite that lasts a long time.

But why is this a bad thing? To me it seems perfectly normal that if
someone uncovers a local gem, the collective would want to try it. This
effect can bring a lot of attention to a particular brewery or beer,
increasing sales and perhaps even a little press. Certainly, Dark Lord
might have always sold out in one day even if RB or BA hadn't existed,
but then again maybe not. Or take Duck-Rabbit Baltic Porter...this one
has gotten high ratings from lots of experienced beer hounds from all
over Europe, a beer from a small town in North Carolina that they might
never have even known about if it hadn't been for this "herd" effect.

As for the bias for "any special beer" from breweries that are well-loved
already, yeah...a few of those irritate me as well (not going to name
breweries here). Que sera...

> any set of rankings will always always always need to be taken with
> a big ol' salt lick.

That's true for any medium, and I'm in full agreement there. I think the
main thing one has to keep in mind about both sites' ratings is that they
are by "amateurs", for "amateurs". The majority of both sites'
membership are just ordinary folks who happen to like beer a lot.
There's a few commercial brewers, many homebrewers, and even a few beer
judges, but for the most part it's just a mish-mash of the beer-focused
consumer demographic. My "top 50" certainly looks very little like the
RB or BA "top 50", but I'm ok with that. 'Cause sometimes those top 50
beers actually ARE pretty freakin' good, and I'd probably never have
known about them otherwise.

Cheers,
Ern

Ernest > wrote:
>Dave Witzel > wrote:
>> Ratebeer is set up to encourage "ticking"...
>
>I don't know that I'd agree with the "set up to encourage" part. I don't
>think RB *or* BA are encouraging anything beyond enjoyment of beer and
>the rating hobby itself.

The BA "beer karma" stat certainly encourages volume. I'm
not certain how that's different from "ticking" when it comes
to the bottom line.
--
Joel Plutchak "They're not people, they're HIPPIES!"
$LASTNAME at VERYWARMmail.com - Eric Cartman

ers (Joel) wrote in
:

> The BA "beer karma" stat certainly encourages volume.

I think it's intended to encourage participation of all kinds; i.e., write
more reviews, articles, etc. and your "karma" goes up. But I would agree
that a lot of members take that value to heart, and let numbers get in the
way of quality. I also think, however, in time those members' intents are
quite obvious to others and the fast-trackers lose some of their overall
"cred". To say that RB or BA's lists and stats are intended to *encourage*
this kind of behavior is, IMHO, false. I think it's just a side
effect...the more opportunities people are given to exploit something, the
more they will tend to do so. You either give more power to the people and
live with the consequences, or you take away those powers.

But at the end of the day your opinions either carry some weight with
others, or they don't. The numbers beside your name have a lot less
importance (to members, at least) nowadays than they did in the early days
of each site. The numbers are still fun and all, don't get me wrong, but I
don't think they're perceived to be as meaningful as perhaps they once
were.

Cheers,
Ern

In article >, Ernest > wrote:
(Joel) wrote in
:
>
>> The BA "beer karma" stat certainly encourages volume.
>
>I think it's intended to encourage participation of all kinds; i.e., write


Do any of the organizations test beer for calories and alcohol.

There was the massive test done over 15 years ago. I,m tired of reading the
same test. We need a new test. Got to know exactly how much alcohol to drink
or know calories for the diet.

And, what ever happened to Beer Drinkers of America?

I quit after they upped the dues 100%, and they always talked about big
increases in beer taxes!!!


greg

ggggg

"Steve Jackson" > дÈëÏûÏ¢
news:c_zoi.367$9A6.355@trnddc01...
> "John Frum" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> Ratebeer v. Beer Advocate
>>
>> Which do you reckon is better?
>
> Better for what? Beer ratings? Pub listings? Witty banter?
> Self-aggrandizing ownership and obnoxious self-promotion?
>
> Read both. Go with which one you like. Neither is better than the other
> for anything, other than your own personal preference.
>
> -Steve
>

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:05:09 -0700, "dgs" > wrote:

>"steve" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>>I think you find that so highly subjective, Its like Westvleteren
>> Trappist ale, its usually rated number one in the USA, but on my many
>> trips to Brugge, and other Belgium beers town they don't think its
>> number one (polled bartenders in the 4 major beer towns).
>
>"4 major beer towns?" Which ones would these be? Explain.

considering westvletaren is barely available in Europe due to the need
to collect direct from the brewery & supposed to be only for your own
consumption, how come Americans are aware of it.

On Jul 23, 11:35 am, Tim > wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:40:27 +0100, John Frum wrote
> (in message > ):
>
> > Ratebeer v. Beer Advocate
>
> > Which do you reckon is better?
>
> > What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?
>
> > TIA
>
> Thanks everyone.
>
> What I really want to know is which is more authoritative in its
> ratings.
>
> This is all part of research I am doing for a book on US breweries.

Neither should be considered authoritative. Rates beer is about the
quaint of ratings and ranking beers and establishments while Beer
Advocate is more holistic in it's approach to beer and promoting the
industry as a whole. It personal preference which community you like.
Some people choose to argue about it but I have friends who swear by
both. I choose to use each for different purposes.

I don't see how this thread would be relevant to your book? Good luck
anyway.

Cheers!
Matt

(Phatz)

On Jul 21, 4:40 pm, John Frum > wrote:
> Ratebeer v. Beer Advocate
>
> Which do you reckon is better?
>
> What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?
>
> TIA

Difficult to say one is better than the other. Both are resources for
information that have different approaches.

In rec.food.drink.beer John S. > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 4:40 pm, John Frum > wrote:
>> Ratebeer v. Beer Advocate
>>
>> Which do you reckon is better?
>>
>> What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?
>>
>> TIA
>
> Difficult to say one is better than the other. Both are resources for
> information that have different approaches.

Don't really care about either, but when I find a new beer that I
care enough about to see if anyone else has found and posted about
it somewhere (like about once a year?), I go to ratebeer. To which
I went just now, to post (so ****ing sorry about any formatting
problems!):
---
Zwickel/Keller/Landbier

"Three related, minor, lager styles..." Whoops.

ObPedanticismThatYou.veHopefullyHeardBeforeElswher eBetterExpressed:

First, Zwickelbier. A "Zwickel" is what the sampling tap on a fermenting vat is (informally, usually) called. Zwickelbier as a style, such as what North American beergeeks are typically concerned with at places like ratebeer.com, simply does not exist. There are numerous beers which are marketed as "Zwickelbier", though they.re sold in bottled, kegged, and/or jugged at breweries. Real Zwickelbier is what you get when someone pours you a sample from a fermenting vat.

Next, Kellerbier. Beer served at the Keller, the lagering cellar. In Franconia/Franken, it.s usually dug into a tree-covered hillside, which has been used to lager beer for centuries. Little countryside brewers found that people would come to the Keller to buy their beer: To take home, but also to drink there. The latter is more important nowadays, of course, and so Kellerbier just means beer served at the Bierkeller. Most are pale, at least nowadays.

Should be basically what beer was back in those days: Unfiltered, poured from kegs hauled up out of the Keller and tapped on the spot. Sorry, the famous "Kellerbier" from St. Georgenbräu no longer seems to qualify, as it.s served under gas--even at the brewery.s own Keller--most probably filtered, and supposedly even colored to make it darker than most other fränkische Kellerbiere. There.s just something missing from St. G.s. Economy of scale, maybe?

And...Landbier. Means absolutley nothing--stylistically or otherwise. Simply means "country beer". Can be dark, pale, malty, hoppy, filtered, unfiltered, etc. Says nothing about serving style. Jever or Becks could bottle a "Landbier", and it would be ever bit as authentic as Rittmayer's(Hallendorf)...though the latter.s brewery is actually located in the country. Or at least in a country village.
So then...is it really accurate to lump these as "three related, minor, lager styles"? Is it fair to those wanting to learn about obscure "deutsche Biere"?

Figure out how to replace the first five words of
http://ratebeer.com/ShowStyle.asp?StyleID=74
and then move on to the rest of the verbiage there...and then explain how Victory Braumeister Harvest Pils can even be remotely considered next to such beers as Roppelt.s Kellerbier. Go on, I dare you.

Was only motivated to post this because of the sublime, sensory-delighting excellence of the brand new Aufsesser Zwickelbier I picked up in *Bügelflaschen* at the bottle shop yesterday, ironically. Don.t make me post a review...
---
TRIED to post that, but couldn't, because I can't bet bothered to keep up
with passwords, and they can't be bothered to send my password per Email
timely enough.

So, discuss. AFA the other webbie goes, yay for them.

sleurB kciN .com> wrote:
>Zwickel/Keller/Landbier
>
>"Three related, minor, lager styles..." Whoops.
>
>ObPedanticismThatYou.veHopefullyHeardBeforeElswhe reBetterExpressed:

Very nice rundown on the "styles" listed. Good on ya.
--
Joel Plutchak "They're not people, they're HIPPIES!"
$LASTNAME at VERYWARMmail.com - Eric Cartman