Comment Cards-Mandatory?

ckelly said:
IMHO, high remarks need not be commented on.
Anybody who's cooked in a comp more than once in his life should have a timeline, recipes or otherwise have documentation on what he did. If he does well, he'll know exactly what he did to acheive that.

If an entry is marked down? Absolutely be prepared to justify your lower score.
Click to expand...

Don't agree. I have seen a lot of posts where people have said they turned in what they thought was average at best, but yet received a great score.

As for low or marked down scores, yes, anything of a 5 or lower needs to have a comment card.

wallace
 
Divemaster said:
Ramona and I did Vegas last year and had the rep complain that we were doing too many cards. I did them for just about every entry. some were statements like 'under done' others were 'great job'.
Click to expand...


And Part 2 of the problem surfaces. Heaven forbid those poor, tired and overworked Reps have to deal with too many comment cards.
 
Vince RnQ said:
And Part 2 of the problem surfaces. Heaven forbid those poor, tired and overworked Reps have to deal with too many comment cards.
Click to expand...

Maybe, time to retire?

For the most part, I believe most are out there trying to make something of their work and money they put into it.

Maybe the reps and KCBS should really take another look at what this "past time" thing has become. If the entry fee was a few bucks, and everything related to a comp was cheap (smokers, meat, etc...), it would be different IMHO.

wallace
 
Rooter-Tooter BBQ said:
True, I guess its a win win :grin:
Click to expand...
It may be good for one comp, but a false high score isn't going to help me as a cook. I want to be judged as accurately as KCBS allows for, on how the judge thought my food was. If I'm cooking 5's (I'm not) but the judge scores me 7 or 8 because he doesn't want to fill out a card, that doesn't help me.
 
sdbbq1234 said:
Don't agree. I have seen a lot of posts where people have said they turned in what they thought was average at best, but yet received a great score.

As for low or marked down scores, yes, anything of a 5 or lower needs to have a comment card.

wallace
Click to expand...


Alas, the COOK thought it was average but record keeping and journals will tell them what steps they took to produce the product they turned in. (within reason of course)
 
Never got one worth much. My favorite was a pork entry that said it tasted rancid. Scores for taste were 9 8 8 8 7 4

Have had one or two that said ribs tasted like lighter fluid, something we never use. Haven't really ever found them helpful
 
ckelly said:
Alas, the COOK thought it was average but record keeping and journals will tell them what steps they took to produce the product they turned in. (within reason of course)
Click to expand...

Ah, yes! And if they had a few comment cards saying what the judges liked about it, I would think that would be helpful......

wallace
 
If comment cards were required it would probably just piss everyone off even more. It sucks, but you're always going to have judges judging based on personal tastes. And to see those opinions written on comment cards at a comp would make for some issues.
 
The best thing Kcbs could ever do is have all judges shadow a team and see how much $$$$ and time the cooks put into a contest. Secondly, the Kcbs should track judges scores and judges who constantly judge outside the bell curve should be dismissed. I know taste and tenderness is subjective but when you get five 9s and a 6 on appearance it makes you wonder about the judging pool !!!
 
The criteria for, and use of, comment cards is a “top down” initiative and no amount of discussion or debate at this level will ever change that.

Correct me if I am wrong, for I slept since then, but was there not a motion and debate at a BOD meeting regarding the comment cards and the final solution was, they will go away with the new score “program” which does not have the ability to get out of its own way.

There are more judges than cooks so is this "By design?"
 
bignburlyman said:
Don't forget though that the new KSBScore program may not even be able to deal with comment cards, unless they get a method worked out to match up the cards with the correct teams.
Click to expand...

Yep, they are gone with the new system. It won't even be an option. They will, however, have the means to track a judges performance. I doubt it will get used, but the data will be there.
 
Here's my problem with tracking a judge's performance. They would have to evaluate the judge against all tables they have judged to see if they are actually a statistical outlier. I doubt that any one in KCBS could handle the stats for that. (You could use the I/O psychology program at MSU to do it)

The entire beauty of the current program is that you have the "samples" of judges that resemble randomness. Sure you have some systematic variance and some silos, but it is better than medical "random samples".

If they start a BBQ inquisition, they may rid the system of GOOD variance. Believe it or not a LOT of these scores that are all over the place are accurate and would hold true if the same sample was provided to a larger audience. Is that not the point, to give an accurate score?
 
If judges were to be tracked, they might get some feedback on their performance. You know, kind of like the way the judges give cooks feedback on their performance.

Cooks use the constructive feedback they get from judges to improve the quality of their cooking so it would stand to reason that judges could use the constructive feedback they get from tracking to improve the quality of their judging.

So, tell me, how is this a bad thing?
 
Vince RnQ said:
If judges were to be tracked, they might get some feedback on their performance. You know, kind of like the way the judges give cooks feedback on their performance.

Cooks use the constructive feedback they get from judges to improve the quality of their cooking so it would stand to reason that judges could use the constructive feedback they get from tracking to improve the quality of their judging.

So, tell me, how is this a bad thing?
Click to expand...

I assume you are directing this to me. I really thought I did explain it.

The question is calibration vs. Systemic bounding.

Do you really think that judge 6 does not know what they are doing?
 
Let me give an example of why I think tracking is good...

We all know there are judges who scores entries consistently lower than every other judge at his/her table at every contest. Tracking will allow the organization to clearly identify this type of problem and do something about it. Retraining comes to mind as a possible corrective measure but there are certainly other steps. And, since judges can be tracked, those who have been identified as being well outside the norm, have been retrained, etc., their performance after corrective steps can also be tracked to see if the retraining, etc., made any difference. If not, well, now there are clear and well defined reasons for saying "Adios, Judge #6!".

Any tool, if used improperly, can result in abuse. That, however, should not prevent us from using tools at all.
 
I get what you are saying.

Question is do you want consistent scores or scores that best represent what the population thinks of your Que?

What punishment is fitting for some one who gives out 10.1% more nines? Retraining is punishment in lipstick.
 
Judges already operate in too narrow of a range of possible scores in my opinion. If we start to point out ones that don't it will get worse. Many judges will come in to eat, mark down an 8, and go home so they don't get labeled as a statistical outlier. This will make the current "3 point scoring" problem worse.
 
ckelly said:
IMHO, high remarks need not be commented on.
Anybody who's cooked in a comp more than once in his life should have a timeline, recipes or otherwise have documentation on what he did. If he does well, he'll know exactly what he did to acheive that.
Click to expand...

Here's a situation from a GBA contest I judged recently. I had given 10's in both appearance & tenderness. I would have also given it a 10 in taste except it was submitted with sauce on the side & GBA rules require it to be judged with the sauce. Without the sauce, I would gave scored straight 10s. I wrote a comment card telling the team why I scored down in taste. After the judging was done, almost every judge at the table said they scored the entry down due to the sauce. So here was a pitmaster that got mostly 10s with a couple of 9s, who hopefully got some valuable feedback from the comment card I turned in.
 
The more I learn about "Certified" judges, the more I like the idea of judges who have not been "educated" in what is good BBQ. They have to decide for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HogGrog
Stubbs vs Cowboy
Replies
17
Views
1K
HogGrog
HogGrog
F
Hasty Bake Roughneck
Replies
3
Views
644
Fishwater2002
F
L
chips and splinters
Replies
4
Views
728
Smoked&Baked
S
P
Amateur KCBS help
Replies
1
Views
268
thirdeye
thirdeye
Moose
"Over The Top Sammiches!" Throwdown (Entry & Discussion Thread) LASTS Through Monday, Feb. 26th!
Replies
15
Views
2K
larry4406
L
Back
Top