This is my last post until sometime next weekend. Tomorrow I'm leaving for the Meiosis Gordon Research Conference in New Hampshire.
Earlier today I was thinking about what my numerical ratings actually correspond to. So, I came up with descriptions for each half-point increment. Looking back at the beers that I've rated almost all of them fit into these categories.
4.0-5.0: Fantastic (or your favorite adjective)
4.0-4.45: Very Good
3.5-3.95: Good
3.0-3.45: Average/OK
2.5-2.95: Mediocre
2.0-2.45: Bad
1.5-1.95: Terrible
1.0-1.45: Undrinkable
Hopefully assigning qualitative descriptors to the quantitative ratings will also help me become more consistent. I would appreciate comments on these descriptors if you have them (I'm looking at you Win, David and Ward).
Earlier today I was thinking about what my numerical ratings actually correspond to. So, I came up with descriptions for each half-point increment. Looking back at the beers that I've rated almost all of them fit into these categories.
4.0-5.0: Fantastic (or your favorite adjective)
4.0-4.45: Very Good
3.5-3.95: Good
3.0-3.45: Average/OK
2.5-2.95: Mediocre
2.0-2.45: Bad
1.5-1.95: Terrible
1.0-1.45: Undrinkable
Hopefully assigning qualitative descriptors to the quantitative ratings will also help me become more consistent. I would appreciate comments on these descriptors if you have them (I'm looking at you Win, David and Ward).
