Originally Posted by Principle
Is everyone here that averse to the crowdsource model? I understand that wine is nuanced, and the general population may not appreciate subtleties in the same way a som would, but just how different is this from having wine peers that make recommendations?
Here's the problem, statistically...
Let's assume you really like big, huge fruit bombs, with a lot of oak. You look at the 90 point average for a wine and yawn. If you take the time to read through all of the notes from each reviewer, if they have even bothered to leave notes, you might find they look something like this:
Review A - 98 Points, stunning, enormous gobs of red and black fruit, super ripe, with lot of vanilla and other new oak notes.
Review B - 82 Points, over done, over ripe, over oaked, just terrible.
and so on... until you get your 90 point average.
Which is why when I am asked my advice, I tell people that yes, while it's great to have a reviewer who your palate aligns with in terms of overall point scores, it's better to have one whose notes you trust, so that you can read the review and decide by the description if you would like the wine or not.