Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 23:19:26 -0400
Message-Id: <199605170319.XAA21730 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1278
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest               Thursday, 16 May 1996       Volume 01 : Number 1278

 ============================================================================
       J u d g e N e t   -   t h e   b e e r   j u d g e   d i g e s t
 ============================================================================

 Moderator:        Chuck Cox          <chuck at synchro.com>
 Archivist:        Spencer Thomas     <spencer at umich.edu>
 Publisher:        SynchroSystems     <info at synchro.com>

 Submissions:      judge at synchro.com
 Administration:   judge-request at synchro.com
 Archive:          http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge
 BJCP info:        geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com

 ============================================================================
 contents:

 small beer bias :-)
 Evaluating Judges
 Judge quality

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 06:54:08 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: small beer bias :-)

Another view on "big beer bias."  We've read about "big beer bias"--beers
getting awards over "smaller" entries because of their "bigness."  On the
other side, we've read about judges who decide a beer is so flavourful that
they overcompensate and mark it down because, surely, it simply _must_ be
bigger than the guideline.  Well, here's a situation you don't hear about too
often....

We had our Big and Huge competition last weekend.  One entrant had two entries
(out of three) that were below the minimum standard for "big"ness (1.050). 
Who knows why he entered them.  The common wisdom on "big beer bias" would
suggest that we wouldn't have to worry about them.  He sent the beer and paid
his entry fees, so the beer would be judged and he'd get the (we hope) useful
comments and that would be the end of it.

So it was a big (or huge?) surprise for me to learn, when doing the post-
competition data entry, that one of the contenders for BOS was one of those
beers.  The rules are very straightforward--the Big and Huge is a competition
for beers with a minimum original gravity of 1.050 (and, by far, most of the
entries were well above that minimum, and indeed well above the 1.060 standard
for "huge"ness), and beers not meeting the entry requirements are ineligible
for awards.

You can't fault the judges for "blowing it"; the particular AHA style category
straddles the 1.050 line, and the beer was apparently, in the judges'
estimation, an excellent example of that style.  With no information that the
beer was technically ineligible for the competition, the judges gave it a very
respectable score, and it advanced both to the Big Ale round and from there to
the Best of Show round. (No, it wasn't selected BOS.)  Now I'm stuck having to
be the "bad guy" to tell him that the beer was disqualified and doesn't
receive the award. :-(

Spencer Thomas worried that someone might try to slip a bigger-than-eligible
beer into the "Small and Tiny," but who would have thought that someone would
slip a small beer into the Big and Huge (or that we'd have to worry about 
it)?


Now go have a beer,


Bob Paolino                                     
Madison                                    rpaolino at earth.execpc.com
Have a beer today... for your palate and for good health


------------------------------

From: Christopher.R.Vyhnal at Dartmouth.EDU (Christopher R. Vyhnal)
Date: 16 May 96 16:39:00 EDT
Subject: Evaluating Judges

- --- Steve Stroud writes:

After the Boston Homebrew Competition in February, Dan Hall (competition
organizer) sat down and reviewed all of the beer evaluation forms.  In
particular he was looking for omissions, errors, and lack of comments in order
to ascertain whether or not any of the judges had performed poorly enough that
a letter of admonishment to them was warranted.  Conversely, Dan also took note
of judges whose forms were constantly superior and generally personified
'ideal' judging forms.

- --- 

As a newcomer to the BJCP and first-time poster to Judgenet, I hesitate to
offer a suggestion that would increase the workload for competition organizers
and other administrative position holders.  With that disclaimer given, I know
that I could certainly benefit from reviewing the comments of those judges
whose score sheets are evaluated by other experienced judges and determined to
be consistantly superior.

It would be ideal if each competition organizer could review the score sheets
and identify superior and subpar judging as Dan did.  It would also be ideal if
the superior score sheets could be published and distributed to the BJCP
membership for review (via judgenet initially, but ideally via a newsletter to
the whole membership).  This would give inexperienced judges like myself
specific examples of constructive criticisms and good judging, and reward
superior judges by publicly recognizing them for their efforts.

What to do about subpar judging is a more delicate matter, however.  Steve
offers:

"If competition organizers were to uniformly do what Dan did (review all beer
evaluation forms after a competition), judges who are a constant problem could
be identified and action could be taken.  What that action would be is open for
debate but should probably include a warning and/or a period of probation."

I am inclined to think that a written warning to subpar judges may be
justified, but that a "period of probation" might be a little severe.  We each
shelled-out a fair bit to take the exam--I'd like to think (perhaps naively)
that anyone who has to pay for the privilege of evaluating someone else's
homebrew is going to take that privelege seriously.  Given that the BJCP is a
volunteer organization, we should be very slow to condemn any of our members.

...which brings me to a tangentially related issue (stepping softly onto my
soapbox...)  I have subscribed to Judgenet for a few months now, and I continue
to be surprised by the negative tone of some of the comments that are published
here.  To those who are quick to take issue, I would just like to say: 
Homebrewing is a hobby--it's supposed to be fun.  Presumably, each of us got
involved with judging and the BJCP to share the benefit of our homebrewing
and/or beer evaluating experience with less experienced homebrewers, and to
become better homebrewers in the process.  Let's try and keep it friendly... 
afterall, it's only beer folks.

My 2 cents for what it's worth...

Cheers,
Chris Vyhnal

------------------------------

From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Date: Thu, 16 May 96 13:51:25 CDT
Subject: Judge quality

Steve writes:
>If competition organizers were to uniformly do what Dan did (review all beer
>evaluation forms after a competition), judges who are a constant problem
>could be identified and action could be taken.

I agree 100%.  Even if this is impossible, I would like to see more entrants
complain when they get lousy scoresheets.  I've got a whole drawer full
of judging scoresheets with a few unreadable scribbles and some with rude
comments.  Bad judges should be slapped on the wrist at least!

I, personally, spent every free hour for two weeks getting scoresheets and
prizes and ribbons together for the 1994 BOSS competition.  I don't think
I would have had the time to also check judges' work, but if an entrant
sent me a copy of a lousy scoresheet, I would have forwarded it to the judge
with a chastising letter from me.

Al.

------------------------------

End of judge-digest V1 #1278
****************************

 Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com.
 Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.