Looking for homebrewing gift ideas? Check out our previous gift guides here or here!
Also, if you enjoy BrewUnited, please consider doing your Amazon shopping via our affiliate link!
Also, if you enjoy BrewUnited, please consider doing your Amazon shopping via our affiliate link!
This, Matt. The thought process to me is more like "I want to brew a stout. Hmm, let's look at the guidelines, what are the wrinkles that interest me?" I'll browse throught he category, find something that catches my fancy, go from there.
Now, that no longer works.
Now, that no longer works.
Posted 34 days ago.
Ha right Dan I got that, but you're thinking about this from an informed user's standpoint, someone who knows that the appendix exists and that there is another way to categorize the information. I don't think a lot of new brewers, or anyone new to the guidelines, would find that method intuitive. Which, as Chino pointed out, isn't the intention of the guidelines so I get it, but I don't think it's usable from an information architecture standpoint, because the guidelines are now organized from an informed perspective for an informed perspective.
I just preferred the layout that helped both judges and the alternate audience of homebrewers as a whole.
Edit: also, if we keep this up, we are a shoe in for the free tap handle
Posted 34 days ago.
Edited 34 days ago by Matt
There's an appendix?
Well, butter my biscuits...
Posted 34 days ago.
I agree on that Matt, it's no longer possible to just glance at a page and see all the stouts. Part of me feels like we're just so used to the 2008 that doing things differently is going to require us to adapt.
I do think that there are enough differences between stouts that the break up makes sense.
Irish now has: Red, Dry Stout, Extra Stout (whatever that is)
Irish now has: Red, Dry Stout, Extra Stout (whatever that is)
That grouping makes sense they are all dry malty beers with a varying level of roasty/acrid bite.
Dark British has: Sweet Stout, Oatmeal Stout, Tropical, and Foreign Extra
That grouping makes sense because they all have varying levels of sweetness (completely unlike dry stout) and more focus on chocolatey flavours than dry stout.
When I'm thinking I want to brew a stout, I know pretty quickly if I'm looking to brew a dry stout or one of the others with a bit more sweetness and body.
American and Imperial are completely unlike both of those due to the presence of citrusy or american hops and the level of alcohol bite.
In short, yes this is very different. However I think people will get used to it quickly. It took me many months when I started brewing to learn to be comfortable with the 2008 guidelines.
Posted 34 days ago.
> I just preferred the layout that helped both judges and the alternate audience of homebrewers as a whole.
This presumes one or both of two things.> an informed user's standpoint
> Part of me feels like we're just so used to the 2008 that doing things differently is going to require us to adapt.
absolutely agreed!
Posted 34 days ago.
I feel like Imperial is only where it is because of alcohol content and the degree to which America has shifted the style definition. Even in the guidelines there is lot of conversation of English influence.
I agree the break ups make sense, especially from a judging standpoint. But when you go to a bar, I think it's pretty rare that you say "I'll take a very hoppy beer with a crisp finish", you'll say "I want an IPA". The way it was laid out previously catered to that mentality, that the radial styles (American IPA, English IPA, IIPA) fell underneath the prototypical style (IPA). This just makes sense to me, not just because it was the format I was used to (without a doubt influencing my thoughts here), but because it follows the top down category model.
But yeah, I totally understand how it can be more useful for judging purposes and I do think people will get used to the guidelines. But learnability doesn't trump usability, in my mind.
Edit:
And not really presuming either of those things testingapril, I don't think the guidelines were intentionally constructed for a wider audience, but I do think that they fit that model.
And I think you and mchrispen are right, the BJCP is supported by judges and it is for judges, but the guide is still used by other audiences for other purposes, the BJCP knows that, and I think that a better architecture could still facilitate both parties. Obviously they are under no obligation too, and since this helps judges is quite frankly doesn't matter what I think in regards to other users, but yeah I think that documentation should be intuitive for a wide audience, not a specific one when that group clearly isn't the only user
Posted 34 days ago.
Edited 34 days ago by Matt
Matt and HBD, I see your points... but still...
There are now two apps that work just like the old 2008 guideline apps, plus the overly verbose and oddly laid out guidelines PDF. I guess this is where the confusion is now - used to be able to pick a style, look up the style in BCS and have a 90% shot to have the right guideline friendly recipe to springboard. There is going to be massive confusion in competitions with many of these - including American Strong Ale.
I cannot see where there is responsibility of the BJCP to write these styles to benefit anyone other than the BA, AHA and BJCP - maybe Cicerone. The GABF styles remain different and much broader. The only real reason these exist is for judging the quality and characteristic of home brew. That the 2008 is really the only published and widely accepted is no fault of the BJCP (and that was very US centric, much in the way CAMRA is UK centric).
I think there are really big dilemmas: UK bitters and pales are being brewed with traditional malts, but US or NZ hops. Some are down right similar milder west coast hoppy styles... some are just, well, weird experiments. I haven't followed the GBBF this year, but last year's big winner was a Citra Pale Ale... and I tasted some on draft in Sheffield. It was a hazy version of an American Pale Ale. Biscuit, some fruity ester, minerally, huge Citra punch in the face, low carb. No clear place to put a version of that. A lacto-soured saison, or a mixed ferment saison (or any other belgian style) - it seems pretty unclear where to enter.
Posted 34 days ago.
> > Part of me feels like we're just so used to the 2008 that doing things differently is going to require us to adapt.
> absolutely agreed!
You mean like using flaked wheat...
Posted 34 days ago.
And just when this was a friendly conversation, shots are fired!
Posted 34 days ago.
Posted 34 days ago.
Mother. Fucking. Centennial.
Posted 34 days ago.
I looooovvvveeeee Centennial! Send it to meeeeeeee!
Posted 34 days ago.
I've never once used centennital.
Posted 34 days ago.
Just a quick bump - the thread got split on the forums, so I'll rolling it into one.
Posted 34 days ago.
Hopefully this one won't get eaten again by split posts...
After I derailed with the jab (friendly I promise), I should pull this back:
- We (generally) are critical of the definitions, descriptions, layout and taxonomy of 2015 guidelines.
- We (generally) don't like change.
- We (generally) carry very strong opinions about beer, based on our experience and research and palettes.
There are other things about the BJCP that drive me nuts, but that aside, I think that the efforts of herding dozens of experienced brewers (and their egos) toward a massive, agreed upon beer taxonomy should be applauded. Clearly there are political influences of those on the committees, and clearly there is a lot of misinformation. Imagine Mosher and Strong debating smoke character in Scottish Ales (would be fun to listen in). As a compromise, I think this is as good as it can be coming out of committee.
With MTF gaining popularity - it is going to have a massive influence on any revisions to Wild Ales, and I wonder if BJCP will be open to it. Here particularly I think a model of strong influence could be created - have MTF do a series of competitions using their OWN taxonomy. It can still be BJCP sanctioned - and brewer/judge feedback (especially experienced BJCP judges) might spin out a big revision in a couple of years.
The collective WE have yet to form a cogent and unified voice, nor can we form a strong argument until the 2015 fails in certain areas and particularly the NHC competition. How we influence is the question... hard to hit the BJCP from a fiscal perspective, especially when Master and Grand Master levels are just rare these days. I know that Gordon and a few others are reaching out to competitions for feedback, but I suspect most of it will be procedural and not specific to style descriptions, etc.
Posted 34 days ago.
