Subject: Digest for the period 4/16/02 - 4/17/02 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 01:04:06 -0400 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC671345BEB8" --Next_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge feedback (John C. Tull) RE:how to provide feedback (Houseman, David L) Re: Judge feedback (Bill Wible) Re: Digest for the period 4/15/02 - 4/16/02 (JayAnkeney`at`aol.com) Feedback to Judges (Stephen Johnson) --Next_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8" --Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from equinox.unr.edu ([134.197.1.2]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC667745AF2C for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:22:12 -0400 Received: from jctull.biology.unr.edu (jctull.biology.unr.edu [134.197.55.114]) by equinox.unr.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FHLTo19901 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:21:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:21:29 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v481) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Judge feedback From: "John C. Tull" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <397B4AA8-5095-11D6-B5FF-0030656E0756`at`unr.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I organized a competition here in Reno last month and made it a point to be sure that judges were providing descriptive and worthwhile commentary for every beer that was judged. Frankly, the organizer should be responsible for stressing the importance of quality feedback at the beginning of the day. I asked stewards to look over judge sheets to see that they were being filled in. If there was a slacker judge, I told them to work on providing more feedback, as that was why the beer was probably entered in the first place. Ultimately, I saw it as my responsibility as organizer that judges were providing feedback. Now, to the real point that I wanted to make. It is great for people to provide feedback, but not when they are talking out of their tail-end. Some of my recent feedback from competitions was so blatantly wrong that I felt like the judges were either poorly trained or were simply pulling buzz-words out of a pile. Words that judges seem to like to throw on judge sheets simply as filler: DMS, diacetyl, almost brilliant, lacks malt complexity, thin bodied, etc. The list of buzz-terms can go on and on. Of course these are excellent and honest descriptors sometimes, but I see terminology misplaced, misused, and inappropriately prescribed far too often. I would hope that we only find it necessary to put a descriptor on a judge sheet when that descriptor portrays the characteristic of the beer in hand, not when it seems like, maybe, hmmm, this probably helps me bring 4 points off aroma. If you cannot find the descriptor that captures the quality or flaw, don't pull one out of the nether regions. There are people that will know. John C. Tull --Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from bbmail1-out.unisys.com ([192.63.108.40]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC669745B8C3 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:57:13 -0400 Received: from us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com (us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com [192.63.78.151]) by bbmail1-out.unisys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13758 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:55:29 GMT Received: by us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id <20DW2W1A>; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:56:22 -0400 Message-ID: <2AC56C48182B4349AB1906257952AF9839056E`at`USTR-EXCH2.na.uis.unisys.com> From: "Houseman, David L" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: RE:how to provide feedback Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:31:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message One other approach to getting feedback to judges who don't actively seek it is through your BJCP regional representatives. The BJCP receives occasional complaints about judge performance or behavior and will try to mediate quietly. Ultimately for truly egregious behavior sanctions can be imposed I believe, but I don't think it's ever got that far. But just poor quality judging would hardly be cause for action by the BJCP itself since the judge must have passed the test, if minimally. Rather, the competition organizer should either not invite or not use the judge if it's felt that the judging is so poor as to reflect badly on the competition. I suggest that if you come upon practices or behavior that is inappropriate to the ethics and values of the BJCP and these cannot be resolved with the judge in question that you take this to your regional representative. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from diskless7.axs2000.net ([209.120.196.45]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC669945B95B for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:38:22 -0400 Received: from [64.80.86.221] (ppp-086-221.verio.axs2000.net [64.80.86.221]) by diskless7.axs2000.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g3GFaBf06505 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:36:11 -0400 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:37:28 -0400 Subject: Re: Judge feedback From: Bill Wible Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I am a fairly new judge myself, having been doing it less than 2 years. I've probably judged 5 or 6 competitions total, and I organized 1. It was a financial disaster for me, and I do not plan to do it again this year. So I am by no means an expert, I just know what I've seen going on. I think David Houseman was right on with his comments about judges who will never advance if they're writing poor comments, and someone like Dave who has been around alot longer and seen alot more than i have would be better qualified to answer this. Every judge's goal should be to provide the best feedback possible. But like I said, we're using donated or cheaply rented space for these things, and we have a set amount of time to finish and give these businesses their space back. Plus, we always want to get done early enough to have a reasonable announcements and awards ceremony. And there never seem to be enough judges to go around. So often, I know I've been asked to move more quickly than I'd like. Maybe I just judge slow. But when I'm rushed, the sheets don't get the attention they deserve. Maybe there's a portion of the sheets that will always be that way. And some judges are way better than others at writing these things. My sheets often don't contain complete sentences, just impressions. And they do sometimes read like they were written by a caveman. As I progress and learn more, and get better at this, I would expect this to improve with the experience. I'm sure others are in the same situation as me. Judging is voluntary. Like I said, judges don't get paid - they get a free lunch at most. So we can't go turning this into an employee type situation, where judges get regular evaluations or reviews like we do at work. I don't think many of us who volunteer our time and participation would put up with that. There's an element of that in that ranking situation, when you test and retest, then advance based on the combination of test score and points earned. Just like at work, reviews have their issues - Who would write the reviews? Competition organizers? Would they be qualified to do that? What if that person just doesn't like you? What if you don't agree with what they've written - what rights would you have? Would reviews have an impact on your judging advancement? It's a little more involved. I don't know what the 'right' answer is, but I would be against any kind of formal evaluation or review system, other than the testing that is already in place - and I'm sure many others would, too. Many judges I've seen put their contact info, including email addresses, on their judging forms. I respect these guys who do that. If someone has a problem with something they've written, they can go directly to them rather than complain to some official in the BJCP. I'd like to see more judges do this. Bill -------------------------- Brew By You 3504 Cottman Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19149 215-335-BREW (PA) 215-335-0712 (Fax) www.brewbyyou.net --------------------------- --Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.136.8]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC670145BA33 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:20:26 -0400 Received: from JayAnkeney`at`aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id u.155.c69c4a9 (658) for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:19:33 -0400 (EDT) From: JayAnkeney`at`aol.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Message-ID: <155.c69c4a9.29edb724`at`aol.com> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:19:32 EDT Subject: Re: Digest for the period 4/15/02 - 4/16/02 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 44 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message In a message dated 4/15/02 10:06:57 PM, judge`at`synchro.com writes: << There remains the issue of how to get feedback to judges who don't actively seek it... Are there any more ideas that are practicable? Is feedback to judges something we should ignore unless the ranks of judges get larger? >> Randy, One simple suggestion would be to have the competition organizer clearly ask judges to use at least 10-20 words for their comments in each category. This would not make it mandatory, but would give verbally challenged judges a guideline for what is expected. Ten words is a short sentence, and not really a lot to ask. Jay Ankeney 220 39th St. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (310) 545-3983 --Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu ([129.59.1.76]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC670645BC34 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:25:20 -0400 Received: from smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6C+d3.6) with ESMTP id g3GMOSf02373 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:24:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (imap2.mail.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.1.135]) by smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6B+d3.6) with ESMTP id g3GMOS202369 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:24:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from susan.vanderbilt.edu (A193120.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.193.120]) by imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6A+d3.6) with SMTP id g3GMORv15819 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:24:27 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20020416172352.0302a4f4`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu> X-Sender: johnsosm`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:23:52 -0500 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Stephen Johnson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Feedback to Judges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Some more good discussion recently on judging comments and completing the loop between the brewer and the judge regarding the quality of those comments. Thanks to Bill Wible and Randy Paul for some good comments. Something that I've tried to model whenever I judge is to pre-print some peel-off address labels before every competition that I attend as a judge. I put my name, BJCP # and rank, phone number, and e-mail address on that label, and put one on every judge sheet that I fill out. One, it saves time in having to do that part of the task of filling out that part on each score sheet, and two, it gives the brewer a way of contacting me if they have any questions or concerns with my comments. I've judged at probably 15 events now, and not once has anyone ever called or e-mailed. But at least they can if they want to. Maybe that's because I write a lot about what I'm tasting and smelling, try to give feedback on what I think they did, or maybe the brewers never respond, even if they wanted to. Who knows? There is also some competition software out there, the BCO software by Barry DeLapp of Malvern PA that has a feature on it where the competition organizer can print advance sets of labels like these for all judges who are participating. A nice perk for judges who call ahead and tell you that they are coming; however, it may also be an expensive one as well for organizers and clubs that are on a tight competition budget. Steve Johnson, Nashville, TN --Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8-- --Next_Part_SYNC671345BEB8-- Subject: Digest for the period 4/16/02 - 4/17/02 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 01:04:06 -0400 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC671345BEB8" --Next_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge feedback (John C. Tull) RE:how to provide feedback (Houseman, David L) Re: Judge feedback (Bill Wible) Re: Digest for the period 4/15/02 - 4/16/02 (JayAnkeney`at`aol.com) Feedback to Judges (Stephen Johnson) --Next_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8" --Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from equinox.unr.edu ([134.197.1.2]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC667745AF2C for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:22:12 -0400 Received: from jctull.biology.unr.edu (jctull.biology.unr.edu [134.197.55.114]) by equinox.unr.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FHLTo19901 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:21:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:21:29 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v481) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Judge feedback From: "John C. Tull" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <397B4AA8-5095-11D6-B5FF-0030656E0756`at`unr.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I organized a competition here in Reno last month and made it a point to be sure that judges were providing descriptive and worthwhile commentary for every beer that was judged. Frankly, the organizer should be responsible for stressing the importance of quality feedback at the beginning of the day. I asked stewards to look over judge sheets to see that they were being filled in. If there was a slacker judge, I told them to work on providing more feedback, as that was why the beer was probably entered in the first place. Ultimately, I saw it as my responsibility as organizer that judges were providing feedback. Now, to the real point that I wanted to make. It is great for people to provide feedback, but not when they are talking out of their tail-end. Some of my recent feedback from competitions was so blatantly wrong that I felt like the judges were either poorly trained or were simply pulling buzz-words out of a pile. Words that judges seem to like to throw on judge sheets simply as filler: DMS, diacetyl, almost brilliant, lacks malt complexity, thin bodied, etc. The list of buzz-terms can go on and on. Of course these are excellent and honest descriptors sometimes, but I see terminology misplaced, misused, and inappropriately prescribed far too often. I would hope that we only find it necessary to put a descriptor on a judge sheet when that descriptor portrays the characteristic of the beer in hand, not when it seems like, maybe, hmmm, this probably helps me bring 4 points off aroma. If you cannot find the descriptor that captures the quality or flaw, don't pull one out of the nether regions. There are people that will know. John C. Tull --Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from bbmail1-out.unisys.com ([192.63.108.40]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC669745B8C3 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:57:13 -0400 Received: from us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com (us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com [192.63.78.151]) by bbmail1-out.unisys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13758 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:55:29 GMT Received: by us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id <20DW2W1A>; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:56:22 -0400 Message-ID: <2AC56C48182B4349AB1906257952AF9839056E`at`USTR-EXCH2.na.uis.unisys.com> From: "Houseman, David L" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: RE:how to provide feedback Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:31:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message One other approach to getting feedback to judges who don't actively seek it is through your BJCP regional representatives. The BJCP receives occasional complaints about judge performance or behavior and will try to mediate quietly. Ultimately for truly egregious behavior sanctions can be imposed I believe, but I don't think it's ever got that far. But just poor quality judging would hardly be cause for action by the BJCP itself since the judge must have passed the test, if minimally. Rather, the competition organizer should either not invite or not use the judge if it's felt that the judging is so poor as to reflect badly on the competition. I suggest that if you come upon practices or behavior that is inappropriate to the ethics and values of the BJCP and these cannot be resolved with the judge in question that you take this to your regional representative. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from diskless7.axs2000.net ([209.120.196.45]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC669945B95B for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:38:22 -0400 Received: from [64.80.86.221] (ppp-086-221.verio.axs2000.net [64.80.86.221]) by diskless7.axs2000.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g3GFaBf06505 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:36:11 -0400 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:37:28 -0400 Subject: Re: Judge feedback From: Bill Wible Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I am a fairly new judge myself, having been doing it less than 2 years. I've probably judged 5 or 6 competitions total, and I organized 1. It was a financial disaster for me, and I do not plan to do it again this year. So I am by no means an expert, I just know what I've seen going on. I think David Houseman was right on with his comments about judges who will never advance if they're writing poor comments, and someone like Dave who has been around alot longer and seen alot more than i have would be better qualified to answer this. Every judge's goal should be to provide the best feedback possible. But like I said, we're using donated or cheaply rented space for these things, and we have a set amount of time to finish and give these businesses their space back. Plus, we always want to get done early enough to have a reasonable announcements and awards ceremony. And there never seem to be enough judges to go around. So often, I know I've been asked to move more quickly than I'd like. Maybe I just judge slow. But when I'm rushed, the sheets don't get the attention they deserve. Maybe there's a portion of the sheets that will always be that way. And some judges are way better than others at writing these things. My sheets often don't contain complete sentences, just impressions. And they do sometimes read like they were written by a caveman. As I progress and learn more, and get better at this, I would expect this to improve with the experience. I'm sure others are in the same situation as me. Judging is voluntary. Like I said, judges don't get paid - they get a free lunch at most. So we can't go turning this into an employee type situation, where judges get regular evaluations or reviews like we do at work. I don't think many of us who volunteer our time and participation would put up with that. There's an element of that in that ranking situation, when you test and retest, then advance based on the combination of test score and points earned. Just like at work, reviews have their issues - Who would write the reviews? Competition organizers? Would they be qualified to do that? What if that person just doesn't like you? What if you don't agree with what they've written - what rights would you have? Would reviews have an impact on your judging advancement? It's a little more involved. I don't know what the 'right' answer is, but I would be against any kind of formal evaluation or review system, other than the testing that is already in place - and I'm sure many others would, too. Many judges I've seen put their contact info, including email addresses, on their judging forms. I respect these guys who do that. If someone has a problem with something they've written, they can go directly to them rather than complain to some official in the BJCP. I'd like to see more judges do this. Bill -------------------------- Brew By You 3504 Cottman Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19149 215-335-BREW (PA) 215-335-0712 (Fax) www.brewbyyou.net --------------------------- --Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.136.8]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC670145BA33 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:20:26 -0400 Received: from JayAnkeney`at`aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id u.155.c69c4a9 (658) for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:19:33 -0400 (EDT) From: JayAnkeney`at`aol.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Message-ID: <155.c69c4a9.29edb724`at`aol.com> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:19:32 EDT Subject: Re: Digest for the period 4/15/02 - 4/16/02 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 44 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message In a message dated 4/15/02 10:06:57 PM, judge`at`synchro.com writes: << There remains the issue of how to get feedback to judges who don't actively seek it... Are there any more ideas that are practicable? Is feedback to judges something we should ignore unless the ranks of judges get larger? >> Randy, One simple suggestion would be to have the competition organizer clearly ask judges to use at least 10-20 words for their comments in each category. This would not make it mandatory, but would give verbally challenged judges a guideline for what is expected. Ten words is a short sentence, and not really a lot to ask. Jay Ankeney 220 39th St. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (310) 545-3983 --Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu ([129.59.1.76]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC670645BC34 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:25:20 -0400 Received: from smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6C+d3.6) with ESMTP id g3GMOSf02373 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:24:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (imap2.mail.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.1.135]) by smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6B+d3.6) with ESMTP id g3GMOS202369 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:24:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from susan.vanderbilt.edu (A193120.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.193.120]) by imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6A+d3.6) with SMTP id g3GMORv15819 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:24:27 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20020416172352.0302a4f4`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu> X-Sender: johnsosm`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:23:52 -0500 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Stephen Johnson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Feedback to Judges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Some more good discussion recently on judging comments and completing the loop between the brewer and the judge regarding the quality of those comments. Thanks to Bill Wible and Randy Paul for some good comments. Something that I've tried to model whenever I judge is to pre-print some peel-off address labels before every competition that I attend as a judge. I put my name, BJCP # and rank, phone number, and e-mail address on that label, and put one on every judge sheet that I fill out. One, it saves time in having to do that part of the task of filling out that part on each score sheet, and two, it gives the brewer a way of contacting me if they have any questions or concerns with my comments. I've judged at probably 15 events now, and not once has anyone ever called or e-mailed. But at least they can if they want to. Maybe that's because I write a lot about what I'm tasting and smelling, try to give feedback on what I think they did, or maybe the brewers never respond, even if they wanted to. Who knows? There is also some competition software out there, the BCO software by Barry DeLapp of Malvern PA that has a feature on it where the competition organizer can print advance sets of labels like these for all judges who are participating. A nice perk for judges who call ahead and tell you that they are coming; however, it may also be an expensive one as well for organizers and clubs that are on a tight competition budget. Steve Johnson, Nashville, TN --Message_Part_SYNC671345BEB8-- --Next_Part_SYNC671345BEB8--