Quite a flurry o' writing and posts this week on wine rating systems. I started this as a comment over on Winecast, in response to Tim's proposed five star rating system. (And then it grew...)
Briefly, Tim surveys the various systems in use, from the WS/Parker 100 point lunacy to the 10 point system used over on vinography. Of course, vinography's scale is really a 20 point scale since Alder uses half points - and similarly, Winecast's five stars are really a 10 point scale since he proposes using half stars. (And what is a half star anyway? A planet?)
There is really nothing new about a five star scale. Like Amazon, WineQ has been using five stars, though they seem to have 1/3 stars too, and I still haven't understood how two 3.5 star ratings can average 3.0 stars....
Myself, I've been thinking of proposing an 11 point scale to take into account all of the over-ripe and over-oaked bomber wines out there. I think an 11 point scale would be a better way to go, since a "five and a half star" system just sounds funny, and the 11 points would match the volume control on my Spinal Tap brand amplifier (sorry).
Of course, then someone would want half point to differentiate between a 10.5 and 11.0 fruit bomb, and the madness starts again....
I realize we are a species of measurers. (Our ancestors probably knew how far it was in mackerels between the village and the river long before the distance from Cal Tech to Pasadena City Hall was known but I digress...) But with wine, I want to know if you have a strong opinion about this hooch, either way, and then most importantly WHY you feel that way - because your 2 star acidic shower cleaner could be my perfect 5 star crisp Sunday afternoon refreshment. But I won't know this unless you also post why you gave it those lousy 2 stars!
That brings up another point, which is the averaging of points from several ratings. I realize this probably feeds our innate desire to have a "leader" or "winner" - but why should one rating be able to pull all the others down? In the above example, those scores would be averaged on most sites to a 3.5 stars (3.0 stars on WineQ). As a result, we have a wine that actually generates strong feelings either way, being relegated to the anonymity of the pack.
So, if you are going to have numeric ratings, please back them up with meaningful descriptions. And please lose the average ratings - unless you are clever and devise some way to display standard deviations using half moons or something....
Recent Comments