I've been noticing a trend among beer geeks across the web. Like many, I give my opinion on beers of all types. I also look to see what others think. It's funny to see the wide and varied reviews that people have on any particular beer. Especially The Macro Beers(Bud, Coors ect).
Looking at beer reviews vs. "blind" competition results. I see a curious trend. Now, I'm guilty of this myself. When reviewing, "beer snobs" are easy to "poo-poo" Macros that are placed before them, because they're mass produced, uninteresting or that the beer lover in question might be accused of not really knowing what a real beer is.
But some of those same "snobs" often give the same beers high praise when analyzed in a true blind tasting. Every year for the past decade my wife and friends and I attend the Great American Beer Festival in Denver. On a yearly basis we all seem to scratch our heads when awards are handed-out and macros win medals that micros should be winning. For example, the 2006 American cream ale or lager winner was Red Dog from Miller Brewing Co. Red Dog won a gold medal! Red Dog??? that's nuts, right? Or that Pabst Blue ribbon won a gold for American-Style Lager. No shit! PBR is the best American Style Lager 'till next year. These tables at the festival always seem to be void of festival goers. So I ask you. Is bias a good or bad thing for true lovers of beer?