I'll do this if there is a huge difference between samples like your saying. My two cents is to not throw out the 4, though. Could be any number of things including batch variance. I try to average the two if there is a big discrepancy. Leave the original rating there but add to it and tweak the numbers? if its small I leave it as is. If you have it multiple times after the first and it's just never as good, or always way better, go back and tweak the score more than once :)

Good advise from my BeerPals thanks but could you please explain how to actually review a beer a second time. I can't figure how to do it.

You can't enter a second review, just edit the existing one. You just scroll down on the beers' page to see your original review and make any changes you want in the review or score and re-enter.

Thanks Slowrunner.

I do what Slow does. Seems to be the convention when there are differences.

I re-rate a few beers, usually because I am very careful to avoid ratings creep. Sometimes in my enthusiastic quest for brewed Nirvana, I get a little "happy" with the ratings. Looking back in a more sober frame of mind, I realize that not every beer can be above average. Ha. I like to look at my rating profile as a histogram and see that the average score is in the middle of the scale (around 3 on a scale of 1 to 5), and that the 5s are rare and truly "outstanding." That said, the 5 from 2004 may not warrant a 5 in 2014. The palate changes, but so do the offerings. The idea of a "forced" distribution such as mine is not admirable from a math and science point of view. But then again, the idea of being perfectly objective while rating beer is not possible from a human being point of view, so the evil of a forced distribution is mitigated by the fact that it does't really matter in the end. Ha. Therefore, I occasionally add some crap beer to my rotation, so I can maintain the shape of my profile with some legit low scores. And I may re-rate downward a few "above average" beers now and then, when my opinion has a chance to mature. Now if I drank only A+ beers my profile should be stacked to the right. But at some point, there would be no answer to the questions of which was the favorite, or why. ONE THING I DO NOT DO is give a beer a low score if there is a chance that I just got a bad sample of an otherwise decent beer. Skunked? Light-struck? Stale? Dirty glass? Just ate some garlic fries? No brewer should get a low score for things beyond his control, and rater / reviewers should be fair, within the limits of human fallibility.

quote: Originally posted by FoamDome I re-rate a few beers

I revisit ratings, too. Sometimes it's because I thought there was something atypical about the initial review (e.g. skunked or infected bottle). Sometimes it's just to add more notes (e.g. this time I got a whiff of orange). Sometimes I actually change scores (e.g. this tastes better than I remember, I like it now).

quote: Originally posted by FoamDome the idea of being perfectly objective while rating beer is not possible from a human being point of view

Truth. Sometimes my ratings come from an "I love this, I don't care whether it's representative of style" place. Sometimes they come from a "I don't like this style, but if I did like this style it seems like it would be excellent" place. It's not possible to be entirely objective, not possible to be entirely consistent, but I think the averages and comments on each brew will-- when taken together-- be somehow meaningful. [;)]

quote: Originally posted by FoamDome I occasionally add some crap beer to my rotation

Likewise. My graph skews high, but most of the beers I drink really are good beers. For some balance, I will review any beer I come across, no matter how craptastic I expect it to be. In fact, I sometimes look at the lowest rated beers just to check out some names I should try. (Some of my additions are even rejected as not-beery-enough-for-Beerpal. I'm willing to scrape the bottom of the barrel!)

quote: Originally posted by FoamDome ONE THING I DO NOT DO is give a beer a low score if there is a chance that I just got a bad sample of an otherwise decent beer. Skunked? Light-struck? Stale? Dirty glass? Just ate some garlic fries?

Meh, I still review it. I figure I can review what I got, because we often have no idea whether our particular bottle (or can, or pour, or what-have-you) represents the brewer's ideal of the brew. It's just a fact of life that sometimes the beer isn't delivered perfectly. At the same time, I try to be fair, mentioning suspected problems in the first review (e.g. I think this was infected because it exploded in my face) and re-reviewing in the future. :)

I agree with Quat on that last point. I'll review an obviously off beer (and rrate if I get it again) and won't feel too bad about it. As often as not, the brewer is at fault, especially - but not limited to - old ass beers that aren't dated. I had some horrible HUB beers, and skipped them completely last time I was in Portland. We went last week and a couple of those beers were not too shabby. I re-rated and averaged the score...but didn't completely disregard the shitty ones I'd had before.

Dave, while I think we all an get a little happy in our ratings (as you put it) I also think our inner beer geek will gravitate towards beers higher than 50th percentile beers, hence the higher average score. If I go to a new brewery, I may try a few new things, but usually (not always) I'm not going to buy bottles of that type of beer in the store. I'll gravitate towrds styles and brewers that I have a far greater chance of really liking. I think my 3.53 average is pretty fair and accurate, but of course, to each his own. One of the features on RB I like is that it shows your average score versus the average score specifically for the beers you've rated. Gives you some good insight into whether you are stingy or overly generous.

This thread reminds us of irl limitations. We are fallible critics. There's also quality variation in batches, and changes deliberately made BEHIND the label. Did you know that Anheuser-Busch prides itself on CONSISTENCY? Every can of Bud is supposed to be the same, across space & time! Bane: mediocrity rules. Much beer can be sold if it's inoffensively bland, but drinkable.