begin Paul 'Baloo' Johnson quotation: > Have you had Moosehead? Don't think so. If you say it's worthwhile, I will try it. > > In case anyone is curious, my reviews of beers are available at my web > > site, http://crdic.ath.cx . They are also posted (along with those of > > That's a pretty good site. I like that a bit more than ratebeer. My > guess is an OK beer starts around 50 and a good beer starts around 70 on > your site, if not just a a wee bit slanted towards the darks? Thanks. Well, the site is definitely tilted towards my preferences, which lean towards the dark side of the brewery, but I try not to let a well-made brew get too low a score even if I don't care for it. Generally speaking, at 66-71 you're seeing a mixture of mediocre but tolerable beers (e.g. Portland Haystack Black Porter), good but flawed (IMHO) beers (e.g. Old Rasputin Imperial Stout), and beers that are well-made but just not at all to my taste (e.g. Fuller's ESB). Below that, I think the beers have definite problems, to a greater degree the lower the score (obviously). Things I enjoy without significant reservation start at 73. My favorites start at 87. If these numbers seem like weird boundaries, it's because my site is built by a script that reads all my reviews from ratebeer.com and reformats them. The 0-100 score is derived by scaling ratebeer's 0.5-5.0 scale, hence the odd numbers. Craig
Attachment:
pgpq_gYIxvp1K.pgp
Description: PGP signature