I have rated a few beers on Ratebeer.com, and will probably do so again from time to time, but am not entirely comfortable with the concept. At least the websites represent lots of people’s views, and moreoever people who aren’t (usually) posting as “professionals” or “experts”. A few more disclaimers along the lines of “don’t take the scores too seriously” and “the best way to find out is try it yourself” would be nice, though.

As for comparisons with wine, I am happy to consider beer and wine in a different light, with no criticism implied of either.

But back to the collaborative filtering; if you recommended a lambic (and I don’t like ‘em either) based on and supporting a good example of the style, I’d be incined to try it just to see if there’d been something I was missing before. Then I’d flame you if it was the same old sour beer.

Seriously, I like the idea of setting up a Did You Like It, sort of rating archive based on what we like or don’t. I’ve never made it a secret that I don’t like Gueuze or Lambic at RealBeer and no one would expect me to review one, but that’s about where my dislikes in beer styles end.

I am not a fan of the aggregate number at RB and BA, but I think it has more value to a regular user than as a number posted as a shelf talker in your local better beer store.

Loren, I agree that the descriptions are more important, and Steve, that the real value is finding people whose tastes have meaning for your.

I’d love to see some sort of collaborative filtering for beer drinkers. That way I could see that SteveH likes this particular Munich Dunkel and since we share similar tastes for lager I might seek it out.

Given the range of beer styles – Alan and I might both love barley wines but if he bought a lambic on my recommendation (I love ‘em; he doesn’t) then he’d be disappointed – it would need to be sortable in a variety of ways.

I’ve considered archiving the notes I do for various publications here and even adding some sort of rating since that might provide context and answer the question Did you like it?

I still haven’t, but I see value in individual ratings (just so they don’t turn into shelf talkers). They are an important part of the beer enthusiast sites, and those sites have been vital in the ongoing beer revolution. I question their meaning meaning in aggregate (and plugged into a magic formula that gives them a score on a 100-point scale).

Which takes us to the next comments.

The difference between an excellent bottle of wine and a great one can be literally hundreds of dollars. In beer it is only dollars.

Also, a lot of people invest in wine – and may never drink it. They want to own numbers. (And eventually sell them.)

While I don’t like the idea of discussing wine versus beer (one thing that I think bothered you about Don Russell’s comment) wine does have a lot more investors than beer. However, I think most wine drinkers are in it for the drinking first. And I know most beer drinkers are.

However, BeerAdvocate’s rating is so wide and varied with what their readers think they should be tasting and how they should be reviewing (few seem to follow the Alstrøm directions), I often take them with huge grains of salt.

Does this trump the Bev Institute altogether? One thing that is helpful at RealBeer is familiarity with its members, you know their likes and dislikes and how that may sway an opinion. I still haven’t joined in adding to the RateBeer database, I actually feel that would become my overkill.

Maybe someone IS watching?

I even struggle to have a top ten…

For me, the biggest bane of ratings is this: beer styles are far too diverse for beers to be rated against each other, so all beers are rated for style. Well, that means beers like Bud Light can sport a 91 (in the light, unhopped, corn-and-rice post-industrial, pilsner-inspired beer category), while Cantillon Kriek gets a 90. And this means what to the uninitiated drinker? And guess which beers are most likely to use them in their advertising (Pilsner Urquell excepted)?

Some critics are wine evangelists and will score a wine highly because it’s big, fruity and accessible.

Other critics are a little more traditional and wouldn’t rate that bottle so highly because it wasn’t complex enough or didn’t taste the way they thought it should.

So if I see a card in front of a rack of wine touting a score of 93, I don’t know if I’m about to buy a high-octane fruit bomb or a more complex wine my ice-cube-in-the-glass-mother-in-law will probably hate.

But I’m pretty sure I’ll like it, either way.