BevNET's review for Coke Zero is now up. If you haven't read it, go do it.

They gave it a lukewarm response, which is not surprising. Granted, in terms of Coke's past diet sodas, it's a huge hit, but among the rest of the products out there, maybe not.

But BevNET doesn't like Coke products. I've read several reviews where they allude to Coca-cola and its products as very poor. They've also given poor reviews to Pepsi products.

It seems that quite a few mainstream products have been given poor reviews, while strange products that we've never seen(and probably will never see) get perfect scores and stellar ratings.

I'm not trying to imply anything, I've just been wondering how we, an active community of beverage enthusiasts, can enjoy the products very much, yet still see such bad ratings given by professionals.

We aren't exactly mindless consumers. We're pretty hardcore, and we know what we're talking about, at least to a certain degree.

But what irritates me even more is that these superior products are so independent and narrowly distributed that someone like me on the East Coast will never see some of these niche products that are only sold near their tiny distributing plants or maybe in some far-out espresso shop or neo-healthfood store in California.

Do we like Coke and Pepsi products only because we were raised on them? Are we a product of training, so that we like them because it's part of our youth? How is it that after trying new, exotic, and wonderful products, we can still come back to our "old friend" sodas, and BevNET cannot?

It's just something that's been racking my brain for a while. I'd like to hear what anyone has to say.

For the record, I'm not bashing BevNET. I love this place, and respect every review on the site.

We are a product of our seasoned experience of a multitude of brands and flavors. I doubt the members of this board (hard core lovers and consumers) are stuck on a brand due to some childhood imprinting.

I constantly challenge my taste buds, my perception of taste all the time. New flavors especially are given a full and open review. Not just with one can/bottle but with a 6 pack or even a 12 pack. I try the product ice cold and or more importantly over the rocks.

I evaluate not first impressions as those are not usually good indicators. I know that my method is not unique. I believe that we the members of this board have said that Coke Zero is a good to excellent addition to the zero carb soda pop category.

That being said, I will open a Coke Zero and chill. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-17-2005, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Mr Zabe ]

Ehh. I do not take much stock in reviews in general. If its movie, food, electronics etc. People have diffrent prefences, and different experince that do not always jive with mine.

I am from Missouri (born and lived there for 24 years), and you have to Show ME.

By that I mean, I have to taste test it myself.

[ 06-17-2005, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: jmyjunk ]

Ehh, look at it this way.

IGN nitpicks in certain reviews of games that the mainstream public otherwise finds spectacular.

Ditto with Star Wars fans who search for something to moan about instead of just enjoying themselves.

Bottom line: sit back and enjoy it. Don't listen to what other people think, trust your own taste buds.

BevNet's reviews are preposterous at times. They gave BAWLS Guaranexx (sugar free) a better rating than regular (5 stars (!) vs 4). But if you look at the text of the reviews, they said NOTHING bad about the regular. In fact, they said the sugar-free tastes close to the original! So if the original is the standard, how can it score lower? Do they give bonus stars to diet beverages that they feel are really good, since diet drinks are usually lousy?

And don't get me started about their really low SURGE rating...

-HM

They gave Odwalla Superfood this super great rating. I can't even get through a bottle of that stuff and I've tried three times.

But it seems that a few of my ****** friends love it as well, so different tastes I guess. Just wanted to share my 'bevnet shocked me' story.

Originally posted by Hollow Man:
BevNet's reviews are preposterous at times. They gave BAWLS Guaranexx (sugar free) a better rating than regular (5 stars (!) vs 4). But if you look at the text of the reviews, they said NOTHING bad about the regular. In fact, they said the sugar-free tastes close to the original! So if the original is the standard, how can it score lower? Do they give bonus stars to diet beverages that they feel are really good, since diet drinks are usually lousy?

That actually makes sense to me. When someone makes a diet drink that rivals its sugared counterparts, it deserves some extra credit IMHO.

[ 06-17-2005, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Mountain Dew Or Crab Juice? ]

But they never said that it rivaled regular BAWLS.

-HM

Lots of people like Moxie. I think it sucks, but that does not mean the folks who like it are wrong.

i too found it strange that Bevnet's reviews were so different from the user reviews. therefore, i usually disregard the "official" reviews, and go by the user reviews, since those cover a wider range of people, instead of one (or a few, i'm not sure)person working at bevnet. now i completely respect bevnet and their point of view, but i like to hear more people's opinions on things.