Welcome to the Straightbourbon.com Forums.
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 84
  1. #21
    Advanced Taster
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    116

    Re: What Good Are Ratings?

    The 0-100 scale must make sense to the retail industry. if an 86 turns to be not such a good bourbon, at least the number is high enough to confuse consumers to buy it anyway. Nobody would want to be associated with a 0 or 1 on Chuck's scale.

    I have been confused by this as well, Chuck brought this to my attention, and I've thought about it since I first read this thread. I am glad to be involved with this site. I learn something new every day.

    I think Chuck's scale makes sense. It is simple and precise. Retailers love to confuse, keeping us in the gray area. Gray = green to them. Or so I believe.
    Jeff...

    I can learn to resist anything but temptation.

  2. #22
    Bourbonian of the Year 2002 and Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    12,617

    Re: What Good Are Ratings?

    It's Lake Wobegon marketing, where all of the bourbons are above average.

  3. #23
    Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Northwest of Peoria
    Posts
    4,437

    Re: What Good Are Ratings?

    Quote Originally Posted by StraightBoston View Post
    In my bourbon inventory I rate both taste and value on a three-point scale (+/o/-) corresponding to better-than-average, average, worse-than-average -- where "average" corresponds roughly to Jim Beam Black.
    I like this idea. Both taste and value are important. A rating system that includes both but keeps them seperate allows the consumer to decide for himself. Case in point, I don't care if somethging gets a 4 out of 4, or a 97 out od 100, if it costs a $80+, I usually won't buy it, or if I do, its not something I'm gonna stock up on.
    Last edited by ILLfarmboy; 08-09-2010 at 21:02.

  4. #24
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    343

    Re: What Good Are Ratings?

    I like the 0-4 scale very much.

  5. #25
    Virtuoso
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tallahassee
    Posts
    1,390

    Re: What Good Are Ratings?

    This need isn't so much to provide the reader with an 100% accurate/objective assessment, but to allow the reader a means to calibrate their palate to yours, the reviewer.
    This has always been my understanding of ratings. I can usually shush out the relationship between the reviewer and my palate with the 100 point system, even if the Lake Woebegone effect is in play. Granted, it takes some time to understand the reviewers preferences.

    The 0-4 scale makes perfect sense and should a huge help in making generalized buying decisions. I might modify it just a bit for my own use;

    0 = bad
    1 = barely acceptable
    2 = good
    3 = very good
    4 = special and worthy of relaxed contemplation

  6. #26
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SW Iowa
    Posts
    3,042

    Re: What Good Are Ratings?

    Quote Originally Posted by cowdery View Post
    I'm on record, in my book and elsewhere, as not thinking very much of rating systems. Their basic flaw is that they give a sheen of objectivity to something that is inherently subjective.

    I had a long conversation about this with Jim Murray once and his conclusion was, "we owe it to people to give them some kind of guidance."

    That point I concede. Therefore, I'm comfortable with a four or five point scale along these lines:

    0 = bad
    1 = barely acceptable
    2 = good
    3 = very good
    4 = great

    My problem with the 100 point systems is exactly what comes up here from time to time. "How can X get a 96 when Y gets a 95?" Consequently, one of the rules of my proposed system is no fractions, no 3 1/2 stars. The idea is to rate in a broad way without ranking.

    Subjectivity is still an issue as it always will be. The best bet for someone who wants to use anyone's ratings for guidance is to get to know the tastes of different critics. Either find one who generally agrees with you or just evaluate all of them based on what they seem to like and dislike.

    Anyway, I don't want to write a long essay here. I just mean to open the discussion.
    Although I agree with your point in general it doesn't solve anything. Everything is going to get rated in blogs and magazines as being 3 or better with very few 3's. We're right back where we started. To be honest I have yet to see whiskey writer/reviewer come out and say "This product sucks don't buy it" No offense meant to Chuck or John.
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider, is chaos for the fly.

  7. #27
    Guru
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Eastern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,821

    Re: What Good Are Ratings?

    Quote Originally Posted by p_elliott View Post
    To be honest I have yet to see whiskey writer/reviewer come out and say "This product sucks don't buy it" No offense meant to Chuck or John.
    Never bite the hand that feeds you.
    Joe
    Colonel Joseph B. "Bourbon Joe" Koch

    "Bourbon.....It's cheaper than therapy!!"

  8. #28
    Trippah and Admin
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Northeast Ahia
    Posts
    4,764

    Re: What Good Are Ratings?

    While they may not say those words exactly due to the lack of professionalism required to dip that low, if you peruse the whiskey ratings on MA, you will find low scores that lead you to the same conclusion.
    My name is Joel Goodson. I deal in human fulfillment.
    I grossed over eight thousand dollars in one night. Time of your life, huh kid?

  9. #29
    Irreverent One
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Heart of the Beaver State
    Posts
    2,395

    Re: What Good Are Ratings?

    Quote Originally Posted by p_elliott View Post
    To be honest I have yet to see whiskey writer/reviewer come out and say "This product sucks don't buy it" No offense meant to Chuck or John.
    When, in 2007, I encountered the lineup of Hirsch Canadian Rye whiskies at a local liquor store (8, 10 and 12yo expressions), I checked John's review, which stated, "They’re not good enough to drink neat or on the rocks and too expensive to drink as a mixer", giving them scores of 75, 72 and 70, which was enough to persuade me not to buy any.

    For my own purposes I use a 0-5:

    0. Sucks
    1. Doesn't suck
    2. Good
    3. Very Good
    4. Excellent
    5. Memorable (as in, I'll remember it for the rest of my life.

    Very few things have ever gotten this last one. In bourbon, it's only been

    VSOF S-W produced
    WT 12 yo (this version and the CGF)
    Hirsch 16 BW
    OFBB 2007 release
    PVW 20

    In red wine, only

    1982 Ch. Pichon-Lalande (six bottles consumed from 1992 to 2002)
    1986 Ch. Lafite-Rothschild (magnum opened 2006)
    1986 Penfolds Grange Hermitage (opened 2006)
    1987 Modavi Reserve Cabernet at release (lost complexity as it aged)

    and in the course of the last 30 years, I've sampled thousands of red wines.

    Price factors in on whether I recommend it. A "doesn't suck" wine costing $3 is Recommended. An "excellent" one costing $150 is not, because you can get wines that good for a lot less.
    Scott

    "Remember that your sense of humor is inversely proportional to your level of intolerance."
    - Serge Storms

  10. #30
    Trippah and Admin
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Northeast Ahia
    Posts
    4,764

    Re: What Good Are Ratings?

    John's ratings are a more granular version of the 0-4 scale so I don't believe that his system is really too far from Chuck's.

    Going somewhat by memory here. Forgive any detail issues.

    60-69 (0) "avoid" with two expressions listed
    70-79 (1) "average" around 60 listings
    80-89 (2) too many to count on my phone
    90-94 (3) many here as well
    95-100 (4) less than 50 expressions

    As one wouldlikely assume, the vast majority of bottlings fall in the 2-3 range with the far ends of the scale populated by the best and the worst out there. Is is a bell curve type distribution? I'm too lazy to key them all in to find out, but it looks like it would be close.

    One can dispute the second lowest range being "average" as that's where the majority should appear, but his intent is not to force a distribution across the entire range, but to grade each expression as a single unit.
    My name is Joel Goodson. I deal in human fulfillment.
    I grossed over eight thousand dollars in one night. Time of your life, huh kid?

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Good day From Jax
    By Albatross in forum New to Straightbourbon
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-27-2009, 07:18
  2. Numerical ratings
    By Attila in forum General Bourbon Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-30-2009, 11:03

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top