Subject: Digest for the period 5/27/2006 - 5/28/2006 Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 01:04:53 -0400 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Re: Yet more... (Chuck Cox) 2. Re: The Gold Standard (dave sapsis) 3. RE: Yet more.... (Denis Barsalo) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Cox Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 18:38:31 -0400 Subject: Re: Yet more... John C. Tull wrote: > I also took the liberty of > trying to reformat the text so it was not so horrible to read. Hopefully > the mail server software will not re-reformat it so it looks like > garbage again. The only time the mail server reformats a message is if it is sent in some encoded format like HTML or rich text. It strips out the offending stuff, but that removes the formatting as well. If you want your posting to appear as you intended, send it as plain text. -- Chuck Cox - SynchroSystems - Synchro.com chuck`at`synchro.com, cccox@fas.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dave sapsis Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 04:57:35 -0500 Subject: Re: The Gold Standard John Peed said: >By the way, where is the BJCP leadership? Dave Houseman is not very >enthusiastic about this approach, but I know you're listening, Dave, >and >I hope you're noting the positive response. But where is everybody >else? What is the proper way to approach the BJCP leadership with >proposals like this? Like anything, to make a direct and to-the-point case for something, send it to your Regional Representative (we are all available right at http://www.bjcp.org/officers.html with that beautiful mug of Senior Garofalo at the top -- makes me want to smooch him!) with a request to have it taken to the Board and/or any other appropriate Director you feel might become a sponsor for it. The key to this is to be be clear, concise and give both good objectives and justifications. As far as I can tell, you are "proposing" that the scoresheet get changed to be a commentary on what is missing. The reason for this is that scores are not well justified. I don't believe that is a problem of the scoresheet, but rather the judge. In broad measure, I am sure almost everyone in the BJCP leadership agrees with you on the point that scores need to be justified, and missing points must have some rationale. This has long been supported here and elsewhere (such as in grading exams, assisting newer judges, etc.). The classic example of this was Body and Mouthfeel: "OK Body" with 3 points given. The problem here is twofold -- "ok" is not a level of body and while ok indicates some degree of harmony with what was desired, it gives no indication of what the expected level was. So often we see problems with scoring rationale and justification due to the fact that the judge is imprecise and/or lacking detail in what was perceived AND what was expected; its only then that feedback can address how they might get bridged. As Jamil pointed out, we are currently testing a question set where the format has the examinee attempt to write a 50 scoresheet. It is a very good excersize into highlighting the importance of understanding the target you are looking for -- the gold standard measure against which you are comparing a sample of that style. I recommend everyone give it a try: pick a style, fill out a 50 sheet, and post it up here. I am sure you will find someone to critique it for you amongst this shy little corner of the net... --dave, sacramento ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Denis Barsalo Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 10:02:59 -0400 Subject: RE: Yet more.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John C. Tull Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 14:26:41 -0700 Subject: RE: Yet more... John mentioned in passing in his last post: Snip.... The graders are likely not to make any deductions for your guess as exam beers are often commercial beers. ....snip The last time I wrote an exam, the proctor blended various bottles of homebrew and then had us all judge the result. For instance, taking a light coloured sample and adding a bit of a dark beer to it then calling it an American Brown. That way, no one really knows what to expect for a sample - proctors included - and the sample is closer to what you might expect in a local competition compared to judging a commercial example of a style. I have also done that with calibration beers before a judging session. Denis Barsalo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** 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