It shouldn't matter if they are similar or not, since you aren't comparing entries. Right?
KCBS Score - Judges' Scorecard is live
- Thread starter DUBBAGA
- Start date
It shouldn't matter if they are similar or not, since you aren't comparing entries. Right?
SuperQue
Full Fledged Farker
So if I use the range of scoring that is available to me, to my best judgement, and everyone else scores 7 and above, am I going to be blackballed? If so, then I'll change my scoring. If you want honest judging, then sign me up.
If judging required every score to be justified (Appearance, Taste and Tenderness), would teams be open to that? That way they would know why they got a 7 for tenderness and not a 9 (which more often than not, teams who have a good cook automatically think they'll get a 9). Funny thing is, KCBS has that capability today. Replace the current scorecard with the comment cards.
The problem today is you have to remember everything about an entry after scoring all of the entries and then fill out the comment cards afterwards. As you're judging an entry, it would be easier to record the immediate feedback from the sample on the comment card format that already has some pre-formatted criteria as check boxes. This would provide the transparency and add validity to the scoring numbers that judges provide and the teams receive.
You can mine all the numbers you want but to draw conclusions on why an entry was scored is all guesswork.
If judging required every score to be justified (Appearance, Taste and Tenderness), would teams be open to that? That way they would know why they got a 7 for tenderness and not a 9 (which more often than not, teams who have a good cook automatically think they'll get a 9). Funny thing is, KCBS has that capability today. Replace the current scorecard with the comment cards.
The problem today is you have to remember everything about an entry after scoring all of the entries and then fill out the comment cards afterwards. As you're judging an entry, it would be easier to record the immediate feedback from the sample on the comment card format that already has some pre-formatted criteria as check boxes. This would provide the transparency and add validity to the scoring numbers that judges provide and the teams receive.
You can mine all the numbers you want but to draw conclusions on why an entry was scored is all guesswork.
rorkin
Full Fledged Farker
Totally agree, but.. It kind of gets into a logic loop for me...
Average is by definition a comparative term.
As is above average..
you are not comparing entries in a judging session but in an overall sense
It must be compared to something to be the average of something.
So average as compared to the bulk of entries as compared to a standard ?
It kind of looses me.
Let's not even get started on what is the standard if any for appearance.
Seems totally subjective to me once past just thrown in the box.
Nuff said :hand:
Bob in Corona
Full Fledged Farker
Average as in the average of your (the cbj) lifetime bbq experiences.
DUBBAGA
is One Chatty Farker
I ate BBQ at Market Night in Redlands last Thursday. Provided that a team decides not to take a dump in the box, using that food as a comparison, everyone gets a 15 as 9 isn't a sufficient gap between what I put in my mouth and comp entries :shock:
I have a comment card right next to my pile of paper towels and water bottle and I make notes right on (or next to) a square on my place mat immediately after scoring that entry with 2 or more 7's or any score below a 7, and I use the same terms from the comment card in order, so when I fill out the actual card it makes it pretty quick. So my notes could be something like: dry, sloppy, bland, tough, chewy. Before turning in my score card I look at all my scores and determine which 3 entries I scored the highest and use check marks on my place mat to indicate those to use during any after-judging discussion at the table.
ModelMaker
Quintessential Chatty Farker
And therein I believe lies the difference in score swings among judges. How does a judge in a non-BBQ mecca like central Iowa be expected to score similarly to a judge from areas like KC,Texas, or the Carolina's?
Granted, if all judges at a central Iowa contest are localish than it's probably not that extreme, but a large national contest will have many averages.
Average is not average between all BBQ judges. As long as each judge scores according to the rules and procedures that's all that can be expected.
Ed
GrillBillie_D
Full Fledged Farker
Okay, you have good points. So.....let's take that into consideration. KCBS has the average score for a particular judge regardless of where they have judged. I'm in no way of saying deny a judge based on their average or their scores. But I do think that they could then take that data and make sure that the tables are more evenly dispersed so that say 2 or 3 judges from a non-BBQ mecca do not end up at the same table creating a TOD or TOA. Do you see that could be a valid point?
I'm not in favor of only allowing high scoring judges....in fact, I'm the contrary....I'm in favor or letting a wide sample of judges. But given the fact that you have data historically based on what a judge has done, shouldn't you use that data to create balanced table assignments? You are in no way punishing the judge who has scored low historically other than placing them at a particular table. You have at least made some logical assignment to table seating other than whatever processes are currently in place.
The last time I judged, I had a person who had judged 20+ times....and this was only my 3rd time (sanctioned) judging. After all was said and done, it turns out that the person with all that experience was by far the lowest scoring judge at the table (I was able to decode what table we were and what judge I was). We were seated by experience, not by historical average. Imagine if we had two experienced judges who, historically, were far below the table average seated together. That there is the why TOD happens. If you seat by average, you lessen the chance that it happens....and it doesn't affect either a high or low scoring judge. They still get to judge and score as they see fit. That's how I would like to see this type of data be put to use.
GrillBillie_D
Full Fledged Farker
I am not in favor of only select high scoring judges. I want a wide variety. But if we know we have judges who historically score lower, wouldn't it make sense to make sure they are not seated at the same table? You still get to judge and score as you see fit. But if you are consistently a lower scoring judge, the cooks are saying try to make sure you don't seat 2 or 3 of those judges at the same table. No blackballing, no denying.....just a new seat assignment.
bignburlyman
is one Smokin' Farker
I table captained one time with a VERY well known BBQ cook, cookbook author, class instructor, you get the drift, at the table. His scores were consistently 3 points below everyone else at the table. This was before comment cards, so no feedback on what he didn't like, but he was unapologetic. I dismissed it as ego, that no one could cook as good as him.
I wish I had search foo skills, as there was a thread on here several years ago where a cook judged for the first time and posted about his experience. As I recall, his scores and comments were brutal regarding nearly every entry he tasted. I think his feedback from the forum was so bad, I think he left and never came back. But I could be wrong. If you ask my wife I am for sure wrong! :doh:
I wish I had search foo skills, as there was a thread on here several years ago where a cook judged for the first time and posted about his experience. As I recall, his scores and comments were brutal regarding nearly every entry he tasted. I think his feedback from the forum was so bad, I think he left and never came back. But I could be wrong. If you ask my wife I am for sure wrong! :doh:
rorkin
Full Fledged Farker
Its back live again
Similar threads
