Diagnostic Scoring Idea

[pharp]

I am sure this idea will probably not go over well, but I wonder why a diagnostic scoring system would not make more sense. It seems this would really benefit cooks (especially when they are first starting out) and it might solve some judging problems as well (by default they would be identifying what they didn't like). There may be a better way to do it than described below, but this was just the way I visualized it.

Appearance- There may be criteria to incorporate, but this category may not benefit from any change.

Taste:
1-Bland 5-Perfect 9-Over seasoned

Tenderness:
1-Under cooked 5-Perfect 9-Over cooked

Obviously these descriptions would need to be more complete and incorporate the current language, but just to get the general idea.

The math would be a little more complicated (break out the absolute values) but overall the weighting/scoring would not have to be affected. This would essentially have a "built-in" scorecard from every judge for every meat.

Just and idea after a few years of competing. I don't usually get upset with the judging, it seems like the best teams usually win at the comps I go to. I just think for those head-scratching contests, having these type of scores would help me get better or understand how the judges perceived my food.

I am sure some people will argue this would not be helpful because you would get scores of 933 and 977, so the information would be useless. This could be true, but I think overall the cooks could see a clearer scoring pattern over a couple of contests and improve their product.

Here is a link to a sample spreadsheet so you can play with how the scores would work. When building it I realized that this particular model would effectively make the lowest score a 5. That might be problematic for some but with some more advanced math I think we could fix it, but in reality given the current state of scoring I do not think this an actual issue.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LmsafnHkpalBFoULw9ik8SIBol6-uRuzHL6EYiV_Y-g/edit?usp=sharing

 

[manmeatbbq]

I think you might be on to something here. Having a visual scoring system will help the judge know what a proper score would be based on their personal experience with the bite and a cook would know without a comment card what they need to work on. The issue with the 1-9 system here using absolute numbers is now the scoring system is basically broken down to a 5 point scale instead of a 9 point scale. However, you can argue that even the harshest judge doesn't go below a 5 when judging, unless by a shortage of pieces in the box or something along those lines.

 

[West River BBQ]

Interesting concept and I like the idea of getting/giving more feedback about just what they did or didn't like. Of course, an argument could be made that the feedback sheets (for KCBS) could be used more effectively, but I rarely see judges filling those out.

 

[HOBONICHOLBBQ]

I'm not a comp guy but enjoy reading this section immensely. One note on your system, why not just show all the judges scores and the total? Then if your tenderness etc sucked, you could just plainly see that. I guess I don't understand how this is so complicated, but again I don't play in ya'lls yards

 

[pharp]

I'm not a comp guy but enjoy reading this section immensely. One note on your system, why not just show all the judges scores and the total? Then if your tenderness etc sucked, you could just plainly see that. I guess I don't understand how this is so complicated, but again I don't play in ya'lls yards

It is not complicated, but it is also not informative. A lot of teams feel like they turn in a perfect product, but they don't. If you feel like you turn in something that is perfect, and get bad scores you may not know what to fix. If I get all 7's in tenderness, I know the tenderness was not good. But if I felt like I cooked it perfectly, what do I fix? This would allow a cook to know (hopefully) why the tenderness score was bad.

 

[Jorge]

interesting idea. I think it narrows the scoring range too much,but the concept is interesting. A 5 is what a 9 is today. A 4 or 6 isn't really an 8. With the restricted range each step awaynfrom a 5 is more punitive. It's interesting. I don't know how it would work, even with a greater range, but it's an interesting concept.

 

[pharp]

interesting idea. I think it narrows the scoring range too much,but the concept is interesting. A 5 is what a 9 is today. A 4 or 6 isn't really an 8. With the restricted range each step awaynfrom a 5 is more punitive. It's interesting. I don't know how it would work, even with a greater range, but it's an interesting concept.

Thanks for giving it some thought! Mathematically under this model a 4 and 6 would function exactly as the current 8.

 

[GrillBillie_D]

What about using 1/4 or 1/2 points as you deviate away from 5? That gives you more range up or down. Not quite perfect as you say a 5 is but darn close could be a 4.75 or a 5.25.

 

[pharp]

What about using 1/4 or 1/2 points as you deviate away from 5? That gives you more range up or down. Not quite perfect as you say a 5 is but darn close could be a 4.75 or a 5.25.

To replicate the same range we have now (1-9) 1/2's would need to be used. So a 4.5/5.5 would equal an 8, 4/6 would equal a 7, etc... The rest of the math would remain the same. So what is now a 988 would be a 5 4.5 4.5, but the weighted score would still be 32.56. This gets a little confusing when trying to explain it typed out.

Thanks for giving it some thought and brainstorming with me!

 

[manmeatbbq]

Thanks for giving it some thought! Mathematically under this model a 4 and 6 would function exactly as the current 8.

Instead of being a 1 to 9, it could be changed as a 9 still remains a perfect score, you could just go up or down from there. So, a 10 would be the same as an 8, 11 is a 7 and so on. The advantage here is that you will know which side of perfect you are. Too mushy in your tenderness score would be past perfect so you would get a 10, 11, 12 or whatnot. This just provides the feedback the cook is looking for in the absence of judges actually taking the small amount of time it would actually take to fill in the comment card. Plus this gives the judge the ability to provide feedback without the already absent comment cards.

 

[pharp]

Instead of being a 1 to 9, it could be changed as a 9 still remains a perfect score, you could just go up or down from there. So, a 10 would be the same as an 8, 11 is a 7 and so on. The advantage here is that you will know which side of perfect you are. Too mushy in your tenderness score would be past perfect so you would get a 10, 11, 12 or whatnot. This just provides the feedback the cook is looking for in the absence of judges actually taking the small amount of time it would actually take to fill in the comment card. Plus this gives the judge the ability to provide feedback without the already absent comment cards.

Excellent point. This would probably be easier for people to visualize and make for a much easier transition for judges.

I updated the sample scoring spreadsheet to reflect this. It makes much more sense. Thanks.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LmsafnHkpalBFoULw9ik8SIBol6-uRuzHL6EYiV_Y-g/edit?usp=sharing

 

[masque13]

I find this to be very interesting. Good job of thinking this out like you have.