Subject: Digest for the period 4/23/2004 - 4/24/2004
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:03:15 -0400
Table of contents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Announcement of Northeast rep election (Mark Irwin)
2. Score drift (Calvin Perilloux)
3. New Style Guidelines and BJCP Exam. (Mark Wedge)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Irwin Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:23:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Announcement of Northeast rep election
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, JudgeNet - the beer judge digest wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Ed Westemeier Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:59:49 -0400
> Subject: BJCP email policy
>
> I would really like some input on whether this is something that merits
> sending an email to the entire membership. This would amount to nearly
> 2,000 emails, based on a quick review of the database. While they're
> certainly not commercial in nature, they are definitely unsolicited. I
> believe they're justified for something like an election, and we
> recently did so for the election in the Northeast region (still looking
> for a few more votes there, by the way).
Well I suspect that there has been a problem with the emails that have
gone out about the election. There are six or seven members of the Boston
Wort Processors, including myself, who have never received an email about
the upcoming election from the BJCP based on a discussion on the clubs
email list in the past week. I know that the BJCP has my correct email
address and has had it since last November based on checking my online
record. The others I'm not sure about, though many of them I suspect
should have correct email addresses in the records. In fairness, there
were a couple of Worts who said they did get the emails.
What fraction of the members living in the Northeast region have email
addresses registered with BJCP? For the ones that don't, will a
announcement go out by snail mail or by some other method? If not, it
seems unfair to me to disinfrachise members because of it. Especially
since the only place I've seen that the BJCP is only going to electronic
communication solely has been on this list, though I believe I did get a
letter saying that our annual summaries would no longer be mailed and that
we would need to use the web site in the future.
The communication about replacing Bill Slack as Northeast rep I think has
been extremely poor. I never saw any announcements mentioning the
election was coming up and asking for nominations of candidates. A number
of people I have talked to have said the same thing. In addition the
official announcement emails about how to vote, for those that got them,
appeared 2 to 3 weeks after it was announced here. That seems backwards.
And this appears to match with a couple of posts I saw here a couple of
months ago with people commenting on the potential election of a new
Mountain/Northwest rep being poorly announced.
Note that I am not argueing about the use of email and the web for making
BJCP announcements. It fast and its cheap. However the BJCP should not
do all there communications solely this way, until all members know that
this is happening, or alternatives will be made available to those that
can not or will not deal with electronic communication.
Mark
--
Mark E. Irwin (irwin`at`stat.harvard.edu)
Department of Statistics (mirwin`at`fas.harvard.edu)
Harvard University
**********************************************************************
* JudgeNet - the beer judge digest *
* Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments *
* Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com *
**********************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Calvin Perilloux Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 06:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Score drift
Bryan Gros in a previous JudgeNet wonders about the highest
scoring beer not winning. Call this "Score Drift".
As a judging session progresses, it is almost impossible to
keep the exact same sensory perceptions and scoring values,
due to some imprecision (even if it's minor) in our judging,
not to mention palate changes wrought by previous beers --
or no beer at all, if there was no "calibration" beer
at the start.
This means that a beer you score 35 in one slot in the
flight might score (say) 37 if you did it again later,
or vice versa. Have you ever found yourself wavering
between a 14 or 15 for flavour, or 8 and 9 for aroma?
That very act shows that you can "tip" either way in
slightly different circumstances.
Does this mean that, as Brian postulates, we should just
describe the beer and not assign numbers? Far from it!
The numbers provide a very reasonable assessment of where
in the "ballpark" a given beer lies and makes it far
easier to select the real winner.
A good judge will normally be able to keep this drift
to a minimum, but over te course of an hour or longer
tasting flight, it does exist. When the beers come up
for a final tally at the end of a flight, it's easy to
declare 1-2-3 positions when the scores are widely
disparate. However, when the results are very close,
it is wise to consider that one beer might have been at a
disadvantage (or advantage) based on its position alone.
That's why we sometimes revisit them.
Consider especially a case in point: A 37 and a 36 at the
top of their flight. Worse yet, one judge has scored one high,
two judges score the other higher. This is a perfect example
of revisiting the beers.
When and if I do this, though, we usually will take action
ONLY if there is a definite difference in the beers. If the
beers are a "toss-up" when they are head-to-head, let the scores
stand. But I've been in situations where all three judges look
at each other and say, "the 36 is the one". Debatable procedure?
Perhaps to some who might credit themselves with inordinate
precision in their scoring abilities and those of others,
but this revisitation gives the prize to what is really the
best beer.
On the far OTHER end of the spectrum, on which I can imagine
there would be little debate, consider the experience I had
in many competitions that I took part in during my years
in Australia:
The totals from each of the various flights were collected,
and the numbers alone were compared. No Best of Show round!
Any beer with a 42 average beat any beer with 41! Thus, the
beers unlucky enough to be in flights judged by the harsh judges
(and we all have some leanings in one direction or other) were
destined to lose, no matter how good the beer was. Awful.
I hated it.
The justification for this was two-fold: Firstly, the entrants
would not have to send so many bottles, apparently an important
factor to Aussie homebrewers.
Secondly, some (only some) of the judges that I encountered
thought that they were all as a group EXCEEDINGLY consistent.
It's hard to imagine that such a motley assortment of brewing
profis, old homebrewers, new homebrewers, and consummate drinkers
would be spot on every time with scores, so I beg to disagree
with that sentiment! Anyway, that's the OTHER side of relying
too much on scores alone versus direct comparison.
Calvin Perilloux
Middletown, Maryland, USA
**********************************************************************
* JudgeNet - the beer judge digest *
* Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments *
* Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com *
**********************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Wedge Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: New Style Guidelines and BJCP Exam.
I'm Curious on when the new style guidelines will be reflected in
the BJCP exam. My club is organizing a study group right now.
We plan on starting in June/July with a target test date of
November/December. We are putting together the materials now
and were wondering if we should use the current guidelines or
the new proposed guidelines.
Thanks
Mark A. Wedge
**********************************************************************
* JudgeNet - the beer judge digest *
* Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments *
* Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com *
**********************************************************************
Subject: Digest for the period 4/23/2004 - 4/24/2004
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:03:15 -0400
Table of contents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Announcement of Northeast rep election (Mark Irwin)
2. Score drift (Calvin Perilloux)
3. New Style Guidelines and BJCP Exam. (Mark Wedge)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Irwin Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:23:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Announcement of Northeast rep election
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, JudgeNet - the beer judge digest wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Ed Westemeier Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:59:49 -0400
> Subject: BJCP email policy
>
> I would really like some input on whether this is something that merits
> sending an email to the entire membership. This would amount to nearly
> 2,000 emails, based on a quick review of the database. While they're
> certainly not commercial in nature, they are definitely unsolicited. I
> believe they're justified for something like an election, and we
> recently did so for the election in the Northeast region (still looking
> for a few more votes there, by the way).
Well I suspect that there has been a problem with the emails that have
gone out about the election. There are six or seven members of the Boston
Wort Processors, including myself, who have never received an email about
the upcoming election from the BJCP based on a discussion on the clubs
email list in the past week. I know that the BJCP has my correct email
address and has had it since last November based on checking my online
record. The others I'm not sure about, though many of them I suspect
should have correct email addresses in the records. In fairness, there
were a couple of Worts who said they did get the emails.
What fraction of the members living in the Northeast region have email
addresses registered with BJCP? For the ones that don't, will a
announcement go out by snail mail or by some other method? If not, it
seems unfair to me to disinfrachise members because of it. Especially
since the only place I've seen that the BJCP is only going to electronic
communication solely has been on this list, though I believe I did get a
letter saying that our annual summaries would no longer be mailed and that
we would need to use the web site in the future.
The communication about replacing Bill Slack as Northeast rep I think has
been extremely poor. I never saw any announcements mentioning the
election was coming up and asking for nominations of candidates. A number
of people I have talked to have said the same thing. In addition the
official announcement emails about how to vote, for those that got them,
appeared 2 to 3 weeks after it was announced here. That seems backwards.
And this appears to match with a couple of posts I saw here a couple of
months ago with people commenting on the potential election of a new
Mountain/Northwest rep being poorly announced.
Note that I am not argueing about the use of email and the web for making
BJCP announcements. It fast and its cheap. However the BJCP should not
do all there communications solely this way, until all members know that
this is happening, or alternatives will be made available to those that
can not or will not deal with electronic communication.
Mark
--
Mark E. Irwin (irwin`at`stat.harvard.edu)
Department of Statistics (mirwin`at`fas.harvard.edu)
Harvard University
**********************************************************************
* JudgeNet - the beer judge digest *
* Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments *
* Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com *
**********************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Calvin Perilloux Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 06:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Score drift
Bryan Gros in a previous JudgeNet wonders about the highest
scoring beer not winning. Call this "Score Drift".
As a judging session progresses, it is almost impossible to
keep the exact same sensory perceptions and scoring values,
due to some imprecision (even if it's minor) in our judging,
not to mention palate changes wrought by previous beers --
or no beer at all, if there was no "calibration" beer
at the start.
This means that a beer you score 35 in one slot in the
flight might score (say) 37 if you did it again later,
or vice versa. Have you ever found yourself wavering
between a 14 or 15 for flavour, or 8 and 9 for aroma?
That very act shows that you can "tip" either way in
slightly different circumstances.
Does this mean that, as Brian postulates, we should just
describe the beer and not assign numbers? Far from it!
The numbers provide a very reasonable assessment of where
in the "ballpark" a given beer lies and makes it far
easier to select the real winner.
A good judge will normally be able to keep this drift
to a minimum, but over te course of an hour or longer
tasting flight, it does exist. When the beers come up
for a final tally at the end of a flight, it's easy to
declare 1-2-3 positions when the scores are widely
disparate. However, when the results are very close,
it is wise to consider that one beer might have been at a
disadvantage (or advantage) based on its position alone.
That's why we sometimes revisit them.
Consider especially a case in point: A 37 and a 36 at the
top of their flight. Worse yet, one judge has scored one high,
two judges score the other higher. This is a perfect example
of revisiting the beers.
When and if I do this, though, we usually will take action
ONLY if there is a definite difference in the beers. If the
beers are a "toss-up" when they are head-to-head, let the scores
stand. But I've been in situations where all three judges look
at each other and say, "the 36 is the one". Debatable procedure?
Perhaps to some who might credit themselves with inordinate
precision in their scoring abilities and those of others,
but this revisitation gives the prize to what is really the
best beer.
On the far OTHER end of the spectrum, on which I can imagine
there would be little debate, consider the experience I had
in many competitions that I took part in during my years
in Australia:
The totals from each of the various flights were collected,
and the numbers alone were compared. No Best of Show round!
Any beer with a 42 average beat any beer with 41! Thus, the
beers unlucky enough to be in flights judged by the harsh judges
(and we all have some leanings in one direction or other) were
destined to lose, no matter how good the beer was. Awful.
I hated it.
The justification for this was two-fold: Firstly, the entrants
would not have to send so many bottles, apparently an important
factor to Aussie homebrewers.
Secondly, some (only some) of the judges that I encountered
thought that they were all as a group EXCEEDINGLY consistent.
It's hard to imagine that such a motley assortment of brewing
profis, old homebrewers, new homebrewers, and consummate drinkers
would be spot on every time with scores, so I beg to disagree
with that sentiment! Anyway, that's the OTHER side of relying
too much on scores alone versus direct comparison.
Calvin Perilloux
Middletown, Maryland, USA
**********************************************************************
* JudgeNet - the beer judge digest *
* Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments *
* Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com *
**********************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Wedge Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: New Style Guidelines and BJCP Exam.
I'm Curious on when the new style guidelines will be reflected in
the BJCP exam. My club is organizing a study group right now.
We plan on starting in June/July with a target test date of
November/December. We are putting together the materials now
and were wondering if we should use the current guidelines or
the new proposed guidelines.
Thanks
Mark A. Wedge
**********************************************************************
* JudgeNet - the beer judge digest *
* Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments *
* Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com *
**********************************************************************