Originally Posted by accuseal
I'm a bit new at this but I am a CBJ and have cooked my first contest. It seems to me that judges could be calibrated by taking their scores and after a few contests, giving them a report on how they stack up against the rest of the judging population. I remember the first time I judged being paranoid about whether I was in line with the others or was going to be #6 that was thrown out. Just had an experience where I got horribly inconsistent judging. How can you get 999866 ? Other folks at the same contest had similar observations. I think a calibration tool for the judges would go a long way towards fairness and objectivity. Has this ever been considered? Or was it too time consuming and / or expensive. I have been involved with Statistical Process Control for years in a manufacturing environment. It seems to me that Judges falling outside of standard deviation should be informed; whether high or low.
What makes you think the 3- 9's aren't the oddballs and the 8 was a gift?
Why is it so hard to accept that 2 judges thought your entry was just average and the rest were the dreaded high scoring, meat nibbling, cooler toting sort?
I have no problem scoring your entry as average if it is lacking somewhere, the "kiss of death 6" just means you need to up your game some. I'm not a 7,8,9 judge but rest assured if you give me an excellent piece of meat you get the 9. I give out lots of 9's and also a lot of 6's.
The day comes I have to justify a 6 is the day I just go back to eatin and judgin my own stuff, because 6 is just average not bad BBQ.