Return-Path: judge-request at brew.oeonline.com
Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.26])
	by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA06069
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 00:39:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (twins.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.39])
	by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA26458
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 00:39:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from root at localhost)
	by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.6/2.5) with X.500 id AAA20768; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 00:39:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from brew.oeonline.com (brew.oeonline.com [206.31.224.50])
	by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.6/2.5) with ESMTP id AAA20764; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 00:39:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from root at localhost)
          by brew.oeonline.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id AAA28946 for realjudge; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 00:01:04 -0400
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 00:01:04 -0400
Message-Id: <199807040401.AAA28946 at brew.oeonline.com>
To: judge at hbd.org
From: judge-request at hbd.org (Request Address Only - No Articles)
Reply-to: judge at hbd.org (Posting Address Only - No Requests)
Errors-to: judge-request at hbd.org
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Beer Judge Digest #11 (July 04, 1998)
Status: O
X-Status: 



Beer Judge Digest #11		             Sat 04 July 1998


	FORUM ON BEER JUDGING AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Custodian: custodian at hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Beer Judge Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com


Contents:
  New scoresheets (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Effect of new score sheet on average scores of beers (STEPHEN G STROUD)
  My Comments to Al's Comments about my Comments (Scoresheets) ("Gregory A. Lorton")
  RE: BJCP web page (Exchange)" <darrylri at exchange.microsoft.com>
  Score Sheets - Appearance ("Noel Blake")



Send articles for __publication_only__ to judge at hbd.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to judge-request at hbd.org. 
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! 
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
  the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!

YOU MUST BE A BEER JUDGE OR BE REFERRED BY ONE TO SUBSCRIBE!!! 
You MUST be a subscriber in order to post articles!!! 

Requests for back issues will be ignored. 

CUSTODIANS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (custodian at hbd.org)

              "Not a publication of the BJCP"


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


Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 09:34:14 -0700
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: New scoresheets

bernardch at mindspring.com wrote:
> > Maybe a separate
> > laminated cardstock sheet that is impervious to spilled or gushing beer
> would be a good idea.
> 
> I've done just that. 

Why not put it on the web so all can benefit?  (Email it to me if you 
would like me to host it.)

Al begins by quoting Greg (paraphrasing someone else!):
> >One judge commented that she missed the breakdowns of points under each
> >attribute.  Those little numbers (e.g., 3 for malt, 3 for hops, etc.) were
> >a good crutch for coming to a total score for the attribute, but we agreed
> >that not including the numbers was not a big fault in the scoresheet.
> 
> I like that too, but was voted down.  If there are enough requests, I'm
> sure they'll come back.

I'm one who was strongly against them.  Here is a post that I made during the
scoresheet committee discussion on this issue:

(The triple quoted stuff is one option in a vote we were preparing
to take on whether to use these subcomponent numbers; the numbers were
defended as something that was useful to beginning judges or drunk/
tired judges, and seemed to "just work")

> > >a). Use the current convention of identifying characteristics
> > >and attach a numerical value to each characteristic.
> > >(e.g. for Appearance - color(2), clarity(2), head retention(2))
> 
> > I sort of prefer a. 
> 
> > Comments?
> 
> I think I've said this before but I'll say it again: I have a problem
> with (a).  It just doesn't make sense to have equal weights for these
> for different beers.  
> 
> Here is my time-worn example.  Under the old sheet hops are worth
> 6 points or so, not counting interactions with other components like
[I'm talking about the flavor section here-JBB]
> the "balance."  As this was about 20% of the functional range, we
> can see that getting the hops right contributes a lot to your score.
> But the guy making a weizen can do the hops right in his sleep--just
> a touch of noble hops at the beginning of the boil.  But how about
> the guy making the ESB?  Goldings?  Fuggles?  Both?  Will the bitterness
> balance the little extra caramel from the extra crystal he decides to
> add
> since his last attempt didn't have enough?
> 
> Even if it "just works" it sure makes me uncomfortable.  Maybe if I
> understood why it works?  Is it because everyone judges this way?
> Does every beer style have a component that is a "gimmie?"
> Wheats             Cloudyness/hops
> Pale ale/bitter    Color
> Stout/porter       Color/clarity
> IPA                Hop aroma (just load it on!:))
> Pilsener           ????
> Oh well, so much for that theory.

*************
Al continues:
> I don't think there has been an *official* rollout of the new scoresheet
> and I believe that we should send out a questionaire to all the judges
> before the next committee is formed to re-assess the scoresheet (i.e. in
> a year or so).

I think they are official.  Those who haven't seen them should jump on
over to http://www.bjcp.org.  I strongly agree with the questionaire, but
I would suggest having judges fill it out only after having used it, not
just after having seen it.

******************************

beerking1 at juno.com (Lyle C. Brown) writes:

> 4. The Appearance category is definitely to low at only 3 points. There
> is just not enough range to give a good feedback. If the beer looks
> great, huge dense head, great color, but with a slight haze, you can only
> give a perfect score for appearance, or call it just average. How about 5
> points. Then I could give the above beer a 4. The points  could easily be
> taken from aroma, or one each from aroma and flavor.

This has been by far the most common comment on the new sheet and I won't
be at all surprised to see it changed on the next sheet.  I would like
all of you who feel this way to ask yourself whether 0 would ever be too
high a score, i.e. whether you ever have scored a beer a 2 on appearance
with the old scoresheet.
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb


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

Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 13:52:09 -0400
From: STROUDS at POLAROID.COM (STEPHEN G STROUD)
Subject: Effect of new score sheet on average scores of beers

Dennis Davison asks, "why not give that 38 beer a 40 or 42?"

As Robert Paolino has pointed out, there is nothing in the the new category
point allocations such that a beer that would have gotten a 38 on the old
sheets would now get a 42.  

In fact, the opposite appears to be true.  It looks as if the new score sheet is
driving the average beer score DOWN.  Don't believe me?  I analyzed the scores
assigned to entries from the 1996 Boston Homebrew competition (old score sheet)
and the 1998 BHC (new score sheet).  Both competitions had ~310 entries so the
sample size is statistically the same.  

Here are the percentages of entries that fell into each scoring range:


          1998 %    1996 %
score 
10-14.9      1       0
15-19.9      9       2
20-24.9     21      17
25-29.9     30      37
30-34.9     22      28                                  
35-39.9     14      13
40-44.9      3       3
45+         0.3     0.3  (1 entry each year)


For beers that scored <35, the average score was clearly reduced when using the
new score sheet. It seems obvious why this is so if you look at the new scoring
ranges (and it is NOT because people are brewing poorer beer).  The minimum
level to reach a given range has been reduced pretty much across the board:

Old Scoring Guide:    
Excellent 40-50, Very Good 30-39, Good 25-29, Drinkable 20-24, Problem <20

New Scoring Guide:  
Outstanding 45-50, Excellent 38-44, Very Good 30-37, Good 21-29, Fair 14-20,
Problematic <14

If, as I believe, most judges make sure that the assigned score for an entry
fits the scoring descriptor, then the average good, fair, or problematic beer
will now score lower than it has in the past.  I would be interested in seeing
analyses of other competitions that have used both scoresheets to see if the
same trend is observed.  If it is, I think that the BJCP should consider whether
or not this is what they want. 

One other note:  What is the benefit to including the term 'Outstanding' in the
New Scoring Range?  What is it about the new scoresheet that would influence a
beer judge to give a 45+ to a beer that they wouldn't have in the past?  The
main effect I can see from including OUTSTANDING is that it forced the ranges of
the other scoring terms down.

Cheers,
Steve Stroud

[FWIW, I still think that a 100 point scale, as used in the BJCP exam, is the
way to go:  60+ fair, 70+ good, 80+ vgood, 90+ excellent.  Radical, I know, but
also very intuitive, each range is the same size, and judges WILL get the beers
into the right range - trust them]










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

Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 11:21:32 -0700
From: "Gregory A. Lorton" <glorton at cts.com>
Subject: My Comments to Al's Comments about my Comments (Scoresheets)

Al Korzonas provided a number of comments in BJD #10 to my comments about
my (our?!) collective experiences as a judging panel at the Orange County
Fair in Costa Mesa, CA on Saturday, June 27.  Our judging panel (four of
us), spent a fair amount of time talking about the new scoresheets as we
worked our way through the beers.  I have to admit that I fired off my
original post (in BJD #9) without fully thinking this out.  (Lots of people
accuse me of talking or writing before thinking!  Charles H. will verify
that.)  Let's say that my perspective may have been a little myopic for
some of these issues.  Here is some elaboration to my original comments, or
responses to Al's.

"To me, with color it's yes or no!"  (my comment)
I brought along my Davison Homebrew Color Guide, which saw a lot of use by
the four of us.  We were judging a number of styles that fall into the
working range of the guide (American pale and amber ales, German ales,
California common, and a couple of Belgian styles).  None of the styles had
SRM guides above 18, except the two entries in Belgian Dark Strong Ale.  We
had an American pale ale that was too light (<3, but not an unforgivable
flaw), and an American pale ale that was between 14 and 17 on Dennis
Davison's scale (should have been no higher than 11).  Even though I said
it's yes or no on color, I feel that it has to be pretty clear (using the
color guide) that it is too dark or light, and that it's the consensus of
the panel.  We really tried to give the benefit of the doubt.

And I agree with Al about dark beers (SRM>17).  It's hard to call a brown
porter too dark (SRM up to 30)!

Interestingly, Al comments about the mixed up Kolsch and altbiers at the
AHA first round.  We had the same thing at America's Finest City HBC in
March, and we double-checked the entry forms and numbers.  But in our case,
it was the same brewer!  The judging panel concluded that this individual
might have had two ribbon winners, but he called his dark ale a Kolsch, and
his delicate golden ale an altbier.

"Little numbers"
Even though I missed them at first, I guess I'm glad that the little
numbers (3 for malt, 3 for hops) are gone.  With the little numbers there,
it can become too "mechanical" filling out the flavor attributes of the
beer, and then adding up the score of the little numbers.  Now I have to
think more carefully about it (which gets dangerous around the 18th beer),
and come up with a more "holistic" score for the flavor.

"Cutesie" boxes
Actually, I picked up the name "cutesie" from an excerpt that Al had in BJD
#8 (where I assumed "cutsie" meant "cutesie".  I've checked my dictionary,
it should be spelled "cutesy".)  I thought the name was cute.  No offense
was intended to the concept of the checkbox, and it seemed easier to say
"cutesie box" than "Stylistic Accuracy-Technical Merit-Intangibles
Checkbox".  

Anyway, the more I think about it, the more I personally like the boxes.  I
think it provides useful info to the entrants and is a useful tool for
judges.  My only minor comment now would be that I'd prefer seven
checkboxes instead of five.

"Descriptor Definitions"
My comments about the descriptor definitions were written as a judge using
the scoresheet as a working tool.  It wasn't from the entrants' perspective
(OOPS!!!).  That's my mistake!  But I guess for me, some of those
descriptors are more useful than others.  Checking off "sweet" doesn't mean
anything unless you explain that sweet is (or isn't) appropriate for the
style.  All but a handful of the descriptors could be found as appropriate
in certain beer styles, and checking the box doesn't really tell the
entrant whether it's good or bad.  For example, how would an entrant react
if you checked off "phenolic" on his tripel or his weizen, or "sour/acidic"
on his lambic or Berliner Weisse?  (One judge slammed my wife's tripel,
because it was too phenolic!!!  I thought it was great!)  We need to back
up the checkmarks with a comment or three.

Finally, as an additional comment that I forgot to include two days ago, is
that we liked the wider scoring range.  I would bet that the average
entrant is looking to see how his numerical score fits into the Scoring
guide Box, rather than immediately recognizing 32 meant a very good beer
and 19 must be a "problematic" beer.  I guess that I'd be happier with a
beer that got a 15 on the new scale as opposed to a 19 on the old scale. 
(Although I don't think I'd be ecstatic!)  I think "19 = bad" is something
that has been burned into the minds of many judges (me included).  We dealt
with (and overcame!) that issue in Orange County last Saturday.

About Archives!
It would be nice to have these BJDs archived!  (and while you're at it,
could you add a spellcheck and grammar check to my e-mail!)

Greg Lorton
Carlsbad, CA
I should be brewing today instead of typing!


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

Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 16:50:07 -0700 
From: "Darryl Richman (Exchange)" <darrylri at exchange.microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: BJCP web page

Kelly Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.ra.intel.com> writes:
| Bill Slack, NE rep., BJCP Board, wrote:
| >You can find it by
| >following the link to Regional Reps on the BJCP web page. 
| Don't hesitate
| >to ask your rep.
| 
| Great advice, but the web page info is out of date, is it not?  Bob
| Gorman is listed as the NE rep (you said YOU'RE the NE rep), 
| and Darryl
| Richman is listed as NW rep (I thought it was Alan Moen).  Don't know
| what other bad information there might be.

Kelly, I'm sure that the BoD members who have stepped down as of the
beginning of last month are not yet so far out of touch with the rest of the
board that they could not forward a request from their former constituency
to the board.  I know that I would have no difficulty in locating Alan
Moen's email address for you, should you require it.  I'm also sure that any
BoD member would be happy to pass along any other mistakes or out of date
info you might find on the site, so that it could be updated.

I have to say that if there's one thing I don't envy handing over to Alan
Moen, it's all the whining that goes on.  I don't mean the serious debate
over categories or scoresheet design, but rather the amount of raw
complaining.  And the biggest whiners never seem to show up when it's time
to elect new representatives.  We've had two years of elections now, and of
the seven regions, there has been exactly one contested seat.  I would
assume, from all the complaining out there, that we would have seen some of
the very familiar names from this (and its predecessor) forum show up on the
ballots.  As a democracy, that's how change is effected.

In the meantime, this is a volunteer effort, and you'll simply have to
accept that it isn't even close to being first on the list of priorities for
anyone running it.  I'm not saying that the people on the board (and more
important than the board, the people like Russ Wigglesworth who have really
been running this thing, for far longer than the independent BJCP has been
around) ought to have their praises sung at every opportunity, just that the
membership ought to have realistic ideas of what's possible and how long it
will take.  We had the revolution 3 years ago;  now it's evolution.

Even though it may not sound like it from the above, I really enjoyed my two
years on the board and the year before that, keeping the candle of the BJCP
burning when it looked like it was about to be blown out.  I enjoyed helping
folks in my region learn about the exam, find out when and where it was
being given, and help them to get their records straightened out.  I have
enjoyed working with the other board members, admins, and volunteers on the
committees.  I wish the best for the newly elected members;  it's a very
fulfilling position.  Some of you folks out there ought to give it a try.

		--Darryl Richman

PS:  Since this is already probably over the edge of a flame, please feel
free to respond to me privately, rather than cluttering up the digest.


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

Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 17:56:50 -0700
From: "Noel Blake" <nblake at teleport.com>
Subject: Score Sheets - Appearance

After having used the 1998 scoresheets several times now, I have arrived at
the following formula for scoring appearance.  Since it does not specify
that one point each is to be given to color, clarity, and head retention, I
feel free to deduct two points if a beer falls way short in any of these
categories.  This might be a very hazy light lager, or a porter-colored
bitter.  Where before I usually scored 3 to 5 points, I now sometimes score
0 in the appearance category.  That's what the point range is for, and I'm
sure receiving 0 in appearance does send a message to the brewer to work on
this aspect of the beer.

Another possibility is to take a point or two off the overall impressions.
This is only fair, because beer should be pretty.  If not, it dampens ones
enthusiasm for the beer.

 - Noel Blake
Portland, OR



------------------------------
End of Beer Judge Digest #11, 07/04/98
*************************************
-------