Subject: Digest for the period 5/20/2006 - 5/21/2006 Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 01:03:06 -0400 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Accounting for points ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peed, John Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 13:49:09 -0700 Subject: Accounting for points Not sure if this is the right forum for this, but it seems right. What is the collective opinion on requiring judges to account for all 50 points on a score sheet? What does this tell me about my American wheat beer: "Wheat & malt aroma, slight fruit", aroma score 8 of 12 ? Was the fruit aroma unpleasant or out of character? Was the wheat character weak? Rather than just assign a subjective score of 8, why not require an explanation of where those 4 points went? It sure would help me to improve the beer, or at least give me something to think about. What does this tell me: "Fruity with malty finish. Good balance, some acid", flavor score 15 of 20 ? 15 is a good score, I know that, but what can I do to make it better? What does it need to get those other 5 points? Something like, "Fruitiness seems a little weird for a wheat beer: -5" would at least explain it to me. I would disagree, but at least I would know the judge's thought process. What does this tell me: "Well made, no major defects", overall impression score 7 of 10 ? I have no idea how to make the beer better. Where did those 3 points go? Not enough tangy wheat character? Just wasn't quite interesting enough? "Nothing specific, I just thought it was a 7 so I deducted 3." - OK, that's fair, at least I know. Overall, the beer scored 37 and medaled in the Regionals. Great, very nice. But I got the score sheets back the day before I was going to re-brew the beer for the finals. I was hoping for some insight, some hint of where to go/what to do to push it closer to the top. But there just wasn't any. And this is typical of an awful lot of score sheets. Accounting for all 50 points tends to make you really pay attention to the style guidelines. And it tends to make you do what judging is supposed to do: help the brewer through constructive feedback, not just a description of the beer (which is so often what a good beer gets). I KNOW what my beer tastes like! Don't describe it to me, tell me how I can make it better. If you tell me where the points went, I'll learn a lot more. Try it yourself - score your own beers, accounting for all the points. Or try it the next time you judge a competition. It's a bit challenging, but it's really an eye-opening experience. What I find is that it doesn't have much effect on bad beers or great beers. On good beers, beers that are well made and fit the style, it promotes specific feedback; it also tends to raise the score because a lot of times you find that you can't explain why you would deduct four or five points, so you only deduct a couple. By no means, though, does it force a lot of beers to the top - the top beers always rise above the others. I find that it forces me to concentrate, helps me to be more objective and makes me a better judge. Too drunk to do the math? Whoa! That in itself is instructive feedback for the judge! Please discuss. I'd like to hear thoughts pro and con. John Peed Oak Ridge, TN BJCP certification pending ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Important Subscriber Information ***** To post a message to JudgeNet, send it to judge`at`synchro.com. Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments. Make sure you use a meaningful subject. Quote only as much material as is needed for context. To manage your subscription, go to http://synchro.com/judge/subscriptions.html or send an email to judge-request`at`synchro.com with the subject: help judge. JudgeNet is also available as an NNTP newsgroup, go to news://news.synchro.com/synchro.judge