Subject: Digest for the period 5/30/2006 - 5/31/2006 Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 01:01:38 -0400 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Local BJCP reps (Jon Tobey) 2. Proctor Scoring (Jon Tobey) 3. Score sheet epiphany (Jon Tobey) 4. disparity (Jon Tobey) 5. RE: Score sheet epiphany (Bob Boufford) 6. Bottom-up/Top-down, Objective/Subjective scoring (Rick Garvin) 7. Help! Need judges for BUZZ Off this Sat! (Christopher Clair) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Tobey Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 19:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Local BJCP reps When I was having a problem trying to figure out why I couldn't get support from my "local" rep I found out he's in AZ or something equally ludicrous (I'm in Seattle). Puh-lease. I might as well write to the Pope. Jon Tobey Ideastream 425-822-8351 "It's like one of those craziass Australian wooden Frisbees." My Name is Earl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Tobey Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 19:31:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Proctor Scoring "Well, when you take the exam, your score is compared against the proctor scores in terms of points. So, if the proctors scored it 49 your in good shape. If they scored it 36, not such good shape. The comments are scored based on the quality of your feedback. " The only time I proctored an exam, myself and the other judge (an excellent judge and brewer) were 20 Pts. out on EVERY beer. Unlike judges, proctors don't get to rectify their scores. So in the case in this thread, you would've been screwed, as I assume everybody in that exam was. Interestingly, we had no problem rectifying scores within 3 points once we talked it over (in fact like in this post one beer was a commercial example I recognized and considered an archetypical beer). At that point I actually suggested on this list that proctors should have to be at least that close, but the answer was something to the effect that this artificial spread somehow benefitted the examinees. How an undefined baseline is helpful escaped me then, so I certainly can't recall the reasoning now. Jon Tobey Ideastream 425-822-8351 "It's like one of those craziass Australian wooden Frisbees." My Name is Earl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Tobey Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Score sheet epiphany As usual, Lori Brown's comments on how we never go below ~15 and rarely exceed 40 to get a real range of 25 or so (I don't remember her actual numbers) got me thinking. Suddenly I had an epiphany. The whole "Overal Drinkablility" slush category has always bothered me since we are supposed to be judging to style and that category which is ~10/25 "real" points has nothing to do with style.You can imagine many situations where a not-to-style beer would score better than it should in a particular category. However, the minimum gee-we-love-you-don't-quit-the-hobby (even if we'll never tell you you make great beer) scoring probably will never go away. So how about this. Take the valueless "bottle inspection" scoreless section of the score sheet ("Um yup, it's in a bottle. Do you agree?"), and give points for it. Like 5 points for getting in a bottle, 2 points for removing the label, and 3 points for ullage. Because these are important (although not actually to style, I agree) and keep the Overall Impression section, but not have it count to the score. This way we can keep the minimum score, and have all of the actual important relevant score (anything above the minimum) relate to the style guidelines we are supposedly judging by, while still giving valuable positive input on beers that are misentered. Because after all, entering beer into the correct category is probably the most mystifying part of competing for beginning brewers, so we should at least tell them they make good beer although we can't reward them for it under the present system. (A whole other rant.) Jon Tobey Ideastream 425-822-8351 "It's like one of those craziass Australian wooden Frisbees." My Name is Earl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Tobey Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: disparity I won the state fair and a few weeks later got a 13 on the same beverage at the GABF. In my experience, the number one way to reduce disparity is to RTFG. Something many judges seem unwilling to do. I've had Helleses scored too malty and Stouts marked too dark. So glad I gave these people my beer so that they could help me improve it! The other thing is a lot of judges seem confused between whether they like a beer or not and whether it meets the guidelines or not. I hear that all the time "I like/dislike this beer." To which the only answer is "Who cares? Does it meet the guidelines?" I often judge styles I dislike because I think it keeps me objective and challenges me to refine my skills. I've given many beers I hated high scores because they met the guidelines. Jon Tobey Ideastream 425-822-8351 "It's like one of those craziass Australian wooden Frisbees." My Name is Earl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Boufford Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 06:41:33 -0600 Subject: RE: Score sheet epiphany Jon, It's about juding beer, not the bottle. I would recommend you visit the recent discussions on the BJCP forums and the AHA TechTalk concerning bottles before continuing to promote the idea of assigning points for the bottle. The better option is to take the Bottle Inspection section completly off the form to reduce the bias that is perceived by many, to occur now in competitions. Cheers, Bob -----Original Message----- From: judge`at`synchro.com [mailto:judge@synchro.com]On Behalf Of Jon Tobey Sent: May 29, 2006 8:48 PM To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Cc: Christian Pointer; Alan Moum Subject: Score sheet epiphany As usual, Lori Brown's comments on how we never go below ~15 and rarely exceed 40 to get a real range of 25 or so (I don't remember her actual numbers) got me thinking. Suddenly I had an epiphany. The whole "Overal Drinkablility" slush category has always bothered me since we are supposed to be judging to style and that category which is ~10/25 "real" points has nothing to do with style.You can imagine many situations where a not-to-style beer would score better than it should in a particular category. However, the minimum gee-we-love-you-don't-quit-the-hobby (even if we'll never tell you you make great beer) scoring probably will never go away. So how about this. Take the valueless "bottle inspection" scoreless section of the score sheet ("Um yup, it's in a bottle. Do you agree?"), and give points for it. Like 5 points for getting in a bottle, 2 points for removing the label, and 3 points for ullage. Because these are important (although not actually to style, I agree) and keep the Overall Impression section, but not have it count to the score. This way we can keep the minimum score, and have all of the actual important relevant score (anything above the minimum) relate to the style guidelines we are supposedly judging by, while still giving valuable positive input on beers that are misentered. Because after all, entering beer into the correct category is probably the most mystifying part of competing for beginning brewers, so we should at least tell them they make good beer although we can't reward them for it under the present system. (A whole other rant.) Jon Tobey Ideastream 425-822-8351 "It's like one of those craziass Australian wooden Frisbees." My Name is Earl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Garvin Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:46:36 -0400 Subject: Bottom-up/Top-down, Objective/Subjective scoring Is there really such thing as objective scoring? Sure, use the ASBC tests to objectively derive a beer's attributes. The approach I preach in BURP's judge training (60+ BJCP judges and one Grand Master so far) is that the judge needs to explain in words their subjective experience as well as the basis for the score. The experience of drinking the beer is an inherently subjective experience - we all use different tools, whether we try to calibrate with a beer or not. The terms are different as well - one persons palate prickling experience is another persons lively beer experience. What judges can do is explain in plain English our experience. Read one of Michael Jackson's articles on a distinctive beer while you drink one. He really does get it right. I'd like a contest entrant read their score sheet while they drink their beer and have an "Ah ha!" experience. Giving an entrant a subjective explanation of their beer so that they can put words to their sensations is a great thing. "Astringent" is not enough for an entrant to understand, but "back of the tongue and down the throat has a coarse long lasting astringent finish" tells what is experienced as well as how the entrant can experience the sensation. It's important to explain how you experience the beer as well as what is experienced. David Houseman's comments on bottom-up and top-down judging are spot on. They are techniques, not dogma. The key is coming up with scores that have a reasonable basis and can be debated. This has been debated frequently over the years and a considerable amount of BJCP dogma has been built around the subject. Bottom-up or top-down, they are both reasonable approaches. Take a look at the June-July 1995 Judgenet archives for some previous good discussions. Let's face it, the current score sheets we use will not yield a valid score if all we do is deduct points from 50 in each section and add them for a final score. It's pretty easy to perform a reductio ad absurdum on the counter-argument. Add some E150 caramel coloring to a pilsner until its dark brown and see if it's score is within 3 points of uncolored beer. Is this a problem? Only if you want to justify each point you take from a beer's score. Cheers, Rick Rick Garvin rgarvin`at`garvin.us mobile: 703-629-4671 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Clair Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 21:42:53 -0400 Subject: Help! Need judges for BUZZ Off this Sat! Hello, We are expecting to have over 250 entries for the BUZZ Off this year yet I only have 26 judges as of today. I could really use some more help. If you are available, please come out to judge. It is a great way to earn points, meet other judges and support fellow homebrewers. If you can help, please let me know. Details are included below... On Saturday, June 3rd, Brewers Unlimited Zany Zymurgists (BUZZ) will be holding the 2006 BUZZ Off home brew competition at Iron Hill Brewery & Restaurant in West Chester, PA. We are looking for BJCP experienced judges to help us evaluate the fine entries that we will be receiving from around the country. Last year we had over 250 entries. We certainly hope that you will consider helping us on June 3rd. You may bring any entries you have along that day as long as we receive your information ahead of time. Iron Hill is a gracious host and lunch will be provided. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or visit our website at http://hbd.org/buzz. Thank you for your support! Christopher Clair buzzclub`at`verizon.net http://hbd.org/buzz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** 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