Do "professional" brewers consider brulosophy to be a load of bs?

[Inkleg]

Is it really? To at least one I guess but is there some way to test that hypothesis? It occurs to me that if people are bored with the posts they aren't going to be hitting the "Like this post" button much. The posts here (449 of them) earned 503 likes (1.12 per post on average) which would suggest a pretty high level of interest to me as that seems much higher than the average for any other thread I have been involved in (but I never actually counted before).

The graph below shows the cumulative distribution over posts. Clearly greatest interest (least boredom) was exhibited over the first 50 posts which were liked, on average, 3.2 times and clearly there were some doldrums, between posts 101 and 174 and between 350 and 367 where likes came in at a rate of 0.08 per post but between post 368 and the post before this one the like rate is consistent and back up to 1.6. The 'boring' comment is about 2/3 of the way through this last segment.

By this measure the thread hasn't become more boring towards the end but less so. At least that's how I interpret it. Others?

I liked this post, but I'll have to wait until the Brulosophy results come out to know for sure if there is any difference in the outcome.

 

[Murphys_Law]

Is it really? To at least one I guess but is there some way to test that hypothesis? It occurs to me that if people are bored with the posts they aren't going to be hitting the "Like this post" button much. The posts here (449 of them) earned 503 likes (1.12 per post on average) which would suggest a pretty high level of interest to me as that seems much higher than the average for any other thread I have been involved in (but I never actually counted before).

The graph below shows the cumulative distribution over posts. Clearly greatest interest (least boredom) was exhibited over the first 50 posts which were liked, on average, 3.2 times and clearly there were some doldrums, between posts 101 and 174 and between 350 and 367 where likes came in at a rate of 0.08 per post but between post 368 and the post before this one the like rate is consistent and back up to 1.6. The 'boring' comment is about 2/3 of the way through this last segment.

By this measure the thread hasn't become more boring towards the end but less so. At least that's how I interpret it. Others?

How did you calibrate your panel? For example, maybe Person Y liked a post because he just read something amusing and he/she was in a very good mood, whereas Person Z failed to like a post that was particularly like-worthy simply because he had a bad hangover from drinking warm-fermented lager.

 

[ncbrewer]

I knew this thread was entertaining, but it's nice to have it quantified.

 

[bdogg171]

Whoaaaa hold on there cowboy..."particularly like-worthy", how are you going to prove a post was particularly like-worthy?

 

[Qhrumphf]

Whoaaaa hold on there cowboy..."particularly like-worthy", how are you going to prove a post was particularly like-worthy?

Focus group.

 

[grampamark]

Whoaaaa hold on there cowboy..."particularly like-worthy", how are you going to prove a post was particularly like-worthy?

That isn't anything like spongeworthy, is it?

 

[ericbw]

Is it really? To at least one I guess but is there some way to test that hypothesis? It occurs to me that if people are bored with the posts they aren't going to be hitting the "Like this post" button much. The posts here (449 of them) earned 503 likes (1.12 per post on average) which would suggest a pretty high level of interest to me as that seems much higher than the average for any other thread I have been involved in (but I never actually counted before).



The graph below shows the cumulative distribution over posts. Clearly greatest interest (least boredom) was exhibited over the first 50 posts which were liked, on average, 3.2 times and clearly there were some doldrums, between posts 101 and 174 and between 350 and 367 where likes came in at a rate of 0.08 per post but between post 368 and the post before this one the like rate is consistent and back up to 1.6. The 'boring' comment is about 2/3 of the way through this last segment.



By this measure the thread hasn't become more boring towards the end but less so. At least that's how I interpret it. Others?

I fell asleep in the middle of reading your post.

Are the same few people liking the posts?

How many likes do other similar size threads get?

I can't like a post on my phone.

If there were a dislike button, I would use it sometimes. So a non-like could convert to a dislike.

My boring comment helped to reenergize the thread, ironically.

 

[GRBC]

I wasn't sure if I like it, so I guessed...

 

[allanmorgan]

I feel a little dirty from reading these posts.

 

[Bilsch]

By this measure the thread hasn't become more boring towards the end but less so. At least that's how I interpret it. Others?

I'll bet there was a spike in the like graph after the graph was posted.
But then I love graphs.

 

[HarborTownBrewing]

The posts here (449 of them) earned 503 likes (1.12 per post on average) which would suggest a pretty high level of interest to me as that seems much higher than the average for any other thread I have been involved in (but I never actually counted before).

Seems like a weak hypothesis to me!

 

[ajdelange]

Well that doesn't matter. There was never any intention on my part that anyone would actually try to draw any conclusions from my results. I just, you know, collected some numbers and did linear regression analysis on them because that sounds scientific and put the results out. At least I think I did linear regression but I'm not really sure what that is. I plugged the numbers into a computer program. You are really only supposed to take the data for what they are worth and do your own analysis.

 

[Bilsch]

I laughed so hard I spit some beer on my monitor.

 

[Pkrd]

By this measure the thread hasn't become more boring towards the end but less so. At least that's how I interpret it. Others?

This thread reached it pinnacle at post #2.

Anyhoo, a sensory analyst ex InBev came by on Sunday. Her daughter busted my TV playing Wii tennis, but thats another story. She said 38 is the minimum number needed for consumer testing. It was time for a new telly anyway. Can people tell the difference between 720 and 1080 from the typical seating distance? I can probably guilt her into talking at homebrew club now.

 

[Queequeg]

The main difference us bruphilosopher didn't consider stability. All the test beers are served fresh.

Professional brewers are much more concerned with how there beer is going to taste in three months and most orthodox practices focus on producing beer with high stability.

 

[ajdelange]

She said 38 is the minimum number needed for consumer testing.

There is no minimum number. The number required depends on what the investigator is interested in as I have tried to emphasize throughout the thread. Thirty eight is the minimum number if you want 1% confidence WRT Type I errors, 5% wrt Type II errors and are interested in differentiability of 50%. It's also about the right number for 5%,5% and 40% (respectively Type I, Type II and Pd) or 1%, 20% and 40%) or 20%,20% and 30%. For more sensitive testing more panelists are required (and for less sensitive testing, fewer). What she should have said is that in her laboratory they are usually interested in a parameter set such as one of the ones I gave as examples and consequently use panels of 38 most of the time. If this person is the lab manager or an analyst she should understand this (but I once had a QC lab manager reveal by a question that she didn't understand how a pH meter's ATC works). If, OTOH, a tech I wouldn't expect her to understand that (though some techs would).

It was time for a new telly anyway.

Sorry about the telly.

Can people tell the difference between 720 and 1080 from the typical seating distance?

I certainly can and these old peepers aint the greatest. But that is when comparing examples both done with good compressors. I've seen poorly compressed 1080 material that looks worse than well compressed 720.

 

[ajdelange]

The main difference us bruphilosopher didn't consider stability. All the test beers are served fresh.

My continuing theme (it's in the previous post) is that you design and conduct the test according to what you are trying to find out. If you are interested in knowing whether decoction improves the beer when it is fresh you test it when it is fresh. If you are interested in how decocted beers hold up with time you test after time.

Professional brewers are much more concerned with how there beer is going to taste in three months and most orthodox practices focus on producing beer with high stability.

True enough and there are obviously good reasons for this. But stability isn't the only thing professional brewers are interested in.

 

[ajdelange]

I'll bet there was a spike in the like graph after the graph was posted.
But then I love graphs.

Small one. Here's how it looks as of today:

 

[stpug]

Well that doesn't matter. There was never any intention on my part that anyone would actually try to draw any conclusions from my results. I just, you know, collected some numbers and did linear regression analysis on them because that sounds scientific and put the results out. At least I think I did linear regression but I'm not really sure what that is. I plugged the numbers into a computer program. You are really only supposed to take the data for what they are worth and do your own analysis.

That's f*cking awesome! Made my day

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Anyhoo, a sensory analyst ex InBev came by on Sunday. Her daughter busted my TV playing Wii tennis, but thats another story. She said 38 is the minimum number needed for consumer testing. It was time for a new telly anyway. Can people tell the difference between 720 and 1080 from the typical seating distance? I can probably guilt her into talking at homebrew club now.

What's your minimal acceptable p-value needed to invalidate the null hypothesis and make this question actionable?

 

[cmac62]

This thread reached it pinnacle at post #2.

Anyhoo, a sensory analyst ex InBev came by on Sunday. Her daughter busted my TV playing Wii tennis, but thats another story. She said 38 is the minimum number needed for consumer testing. It was time for a new telly anyway. Can people tell the difference between 720 and 1080 from the typical seating distance? I can probably guilt her into talking at homebrew club now.

You might as well upgrade and get a UHD 40k I definitely can tell the diff. I just bought a Samsung 65 in. UHD and the picture is awesome. :rockin:

 

[cmac62]

Small one. Here's how it looks as of today:

I'm going to go back and like all of AJ's posts

 

[Pkrd]

You might as well upgrade and get a UHD 40k I definitely can tell the diff.

Show your working please.

 

[passedpawn]

And why haven't the mods shut this down yet? It's off topic, aggressive, and way too much math. And boring besides.

When Science meets Conjecture there will be waves - it's climatology. Either party is welcome to avoid the turbulence and move on with their own perspective.

Math boring? Sure. But math is the base explanation of everything. Ignore that?: OK, but don't disparage it.

 

[dmtaylor]

Math is the one true universal language which no space alien can deny.

 

[HarborTownBrewing]

Can people tell the difference between 720 and 1080 from the typical seating distance? I can probably guilt her into talking at homebrew club now.

The thing to keep in mind is, there isn't a whole lot of stuff being live broadcasted in 1080 or 4k. If you're showing football at your place, 1080 or 4k isn't going to be available. If you're showing something on Netflix and have the upgraded subscription, then maybe it's worth it.

Still, my latest purchase was 4k because it's not an expensive upgrade and I'll be prepared for the tech if/when 4k streaming gains traction.

 

[Smellyglove]

Things are being compressed during the transmission, depending on what the source is. A "whatever" event captured in 1080, and watched in 1080 will most often not give you the full 1080 experience (as far as I know), due to compression. At least a few years ago AFAIK. But still, If you watch a movie then for example street signs in the backgound can be more readable in 1080 then 720. Depending on lots of factors though. Now that people are getting fibre (1000 mbit-ish symmetrical, here in norway at least) the compression is not as much needed, but is still applied).

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Things are being compressed during the transmission, depending on what the source is. A "whatever" event captured in 1080, and watched in 1080 will most often not give you the full 1080 experience (as far as I know), due to compression. At least a few years ago AFAIK. But still, If you watch a movie then for example street signs in the backgound can be more readable in 1080 then 720. Depending on lots of factors though. Now that people are getting fibre (1000 mbit-ish symmetrical, here in norway at least) the compression is not as much needed, but is still applied).

That is definitely true. Whether it's cable or satellite, they need to compress the signal to have enough bandwidth to send all those channels. IPTV and streaming have fewer restrictions, as they only have to serve 1 program at a time. But in many cases the streaming services will compress to save the COST of transmission.

Here in the US, this is why OTA network broadcasts are typically higher quality than cable/satellite/streaming. Because the OTA don't have to pay cost of transmission, they compress their signal less than the others. So if you want to watch sports, it's a better picture to watch it over digital broadcast through your antenna than to watch it over cable/satellite/streaming.

 

[Smellyglove]

That is definitely true. Whether it's cable or satellite, they need to compress the signal to have enough bandwidth to send all those channels. IPTV and streaming have fewer restrictions, as they only have to serve 1 program at a time. But in many cases the streaming services will compress to save the COST of transmission.

Here in the US, this is why OTA network broadcasts are typically higher quality than cable/satellite/streaming. Because the OTA don't have to pay cost of transmission, they compress their signal less than the others. So if you want to watch sports, it's a better picture to watch it over digital broadcast through your antenna than to watch it over cable/satellite/streaming.

I've seen TV-content on a TV at the broadcaster/producer, uncompressed, and then the same contentl a few days later at home. Both 1080p (Quality of TV is another factor though) and I must say, the difference was pretty noticeable. More blurry.

 

[HarborTownBrewing]

Yeah, when I watch sports and I have the option, I'll switch from watching through Sling to the antenna. Suchhh a huge improvement.