The attached document shows my scores in 2015 when we last had this sort of bout of collective madness and a comparison with today:
I've done just over twice as many reviews, and some of the figures for the ratings are spookily close to double too. My 6s, 7s and 8s show a slight increase, which perhaps reflects a tendency to do a little preliminary research before visiting a previously unexplored town. (Average marginally up from 5.98 to 6.06.)
As a comparison, there was a similar thread five years ago here: Average pub ratings.
Thanks for digging that one out. ROBCamra also provided a link, but the original thread got split up, I think.
One point that hadn't occured to me before is that some people revise their reviews for revisits, instead of doing a new review, so that a pub may change from, say, a 5 to an 8. In effect, the original 5 score no longer exists. (If this reviewer is the only one who's done a review, the pub's "average" score shifts from 5 to 8.) This affects both the pub's score, and the individual reviewer's average score too. (Compare someone doing two different reviews, one with 5, one with 8 - both scores still exist, and the pub's average is 6.5.)
Going back to Mobyduck's original post, I'm not sure we should be paying this much attention to scores. As Dave points out in #6 on the other thread, rating systems using a scale of 1 to 10 like this aren't much use. (Especially because quite a few prolific reviewers never give a rating, and at least one does the opposite and always scores a 10.) Introducing half points is just the same as awarding marks out of 20 instead of 10. When the system is not that accurate (overall and on average) is there any point in aiming for an accuracy which is unattainable?
Going back to Mobyduck's original post, I'm not sure we should be paying this much attention to scores. As Dave points out in #6 on the other thread, rating systems using a scale of 1 to 10 like this aren't much use. (Especially because quite a few prolific reviewers never give a rating, and at least one does the opposite and always scores a 10.) Introducing half points is just the same as awarding marks out of 20 instead of 10. When the system is not that accurate (overall and on average) is there any point in aiming for an accuracy which is unattainable?
I thought as much. Smart Arse.
"Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer."
-W.C.Fields
Going back to Mobyduck's original post, I'm not sure we should be paying this much attention to scores. As Dave points out in #6 on the other thread, rating systems using a scale of 1 to 10 like this aren't much use. (Especially because quite a few prolific reviewers never give a rating, and at least one does the opposite and always scores a 10.) Introducing half points is just the same as awarding marks out of 20 instead of 10. When the system is not that accurate (overall and on average) is there any point in aiming for an accuracy which is unattainable?
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I seem to recall it being said that when the site was set up consideration was given to not having ratings at all. I'm glad that didn't happen as despite any shortcomings I do like them. There are a few places where I really ought to update the review.
One point that hadn't occured to me before is that some people revise their reviews for revisits, instead of doing a new review, so that a pub may change from, say, a 5 to an 8. In effect, the original 5 score no longer exists. (If this reviewer is the only one who's done a review, the pub's "average" score shifts from 5 to 8.)
Going back to Mobyduck's original post, I'm not sure we should be paying this much attention to scores.
In all seriousness I agree with Wills take on things, that said I do find scores very useful. Most people I guess would do a bit of research before embarking on a day in a new town or area, unless of course you were taking an Alan Winfield approach, I take previous (recent) reviews, words as well as scores to get a balanced idea , for example if Sheffield Hatter rates a pub 7/10 and Bucking Fastard gave it an 8 a couple of months later along with a 7 from Rex Rattus a year before I would surmise the pub was well worth including on the list, If Sandy Beech ,first time reviewer said great Fosters and Karaoke !0/10 I am clever enough to guess It would be more like a 3/10 for me.
That all said a lot can change in pub land over the course of a year, even more so now in the current situation. I think we can forget about the half points.
"Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer."
-W.C.Fields
In all seriousness I agree with Wills take on things, that said I do find scores very useful. Most people I guess would do a bit of research before embarking on a day in a new town or area, unless of course you were taking an Alan Winfield approach, I take previous (recent) reviews, words as well as scores to get a balanced idea , for example if Sheffield Hatter rates a pub 7/10 and Bucking Fastard gave it an 8 a couple of months later along with a 7 from Rex Rattus a year before I would surmise the pub was well worth including on the list, If Sandy Beech ,first time reviewer said great Fosters and Karaoke !0/10 I am clever enough to guess It would be more like a 3/10 for me.
That all said a lot can change in pub land over the course of a year, even more so now in the current situation. I think we can forget about the half points.
Probably one for a different thread, but there's probably some currency in culling all the one-off 10/10 reviews from the site as they add nothing.
In all seriousness I agree with Wills take on things, that said I do find scores very useful. Most people I guess would do a bit of research before embarking on a day in a new town or area, unless of course you were taking an Alan Winfield approach, I take previous (recent) reviews, words as well as scores to get a balanced idea , for example if Sheffield Hatter rates a pub 7/10 and Bucking Fastard gave it an 8 a couple of months later along with a 7 from Rex Rattus a year before I would surmise the pub was well worth including on the list, If Sandy Beech ,first time reviewer said great Fosters and Karaoke !0/10 I am clever enough to guess It would be more like a 3/10 for me.
That all said a lot can change in pub land over the course of a year, even more so now in the current situation. I think we can forget about the half points.
I also use What Pub to get an idea of the sort of beers to expect and the GBG. I also use ownership of the pub and nowadays will try and avoid a Maeston's pubs after so many disappointments. The historic interior link is useful as I get the impression that some places are popular for that rather than the beer. That's on this site and with CAMRA branches. That doesn't mean I avoid historic interior pubs but I'll look more closely at the beers available. To me the Seven Stars in Stourbridge is the best new pub I've been to for a while and it's big on historic interior. This is the way I do things and in most ways always have. I know other people have completely different ideas!
I also use What Pub to get an idea of the sort of beers to expect and the GBG. I also use ownership of the pub and nowadays will try and avoid a Maeston's pubs after so many disappointments. The historic interior link is useful as I get the impression that some places are popular for that rather than the beer. That's on this site and with CAMRA branches. That doesn't mean I avoid historic interior pubs but I'll look more closely at the beers available. To me the Seven Stars in Stourbridge is the best new pub I've been to for a while and it's big on historic interior. This is the way I do things and in most ways always have. I know other people have completely different ideas!
I think we're generally on the same wavelength, I will however occasionally suffer a bland (or not to my taste) beer to experience a good pub like recently a pint of Bass in the Star Inn in Bath.
"Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer."
-W.C.Fields