Quote:
Originally Posted by CBQ
I just hope you don't punish the teams for that. You might prefer something different, but judge it as presented. They are giving you what MOST judges like. (If most judges didn't like it, you would be getting something else.)
Remember Roger Ebert? Unlike many movie critics, he would sometimes give great reviews to low brow movies. He didn't reserve favorable reviews only for "art" films like some critics do. Not every director is trying to make If a movie was supposed to be a raunchy comedy, he would evaluate it against the spectrum of other raunchy comedies. Did the director execute on what he set out to achieve? Was it funny? Did it hold his attention? Was there craftsmanship in the acting and production values?
Judging is the same way. You might like a sage rosemary chicken, but you have to ask yourself did the cook execute well on what they presented to you? Was it tender? Tasty? A good balance of savoy, smokey, sweet, and heat? Did it look good for what it was? If you are reviewing "Something About Mary" you can't judge it is if it was "Citizen Kane."
|
I had a seasoned judge explain it to me as "judging each entry for what it is, instead of what it is not". Was it well balanced? Was it over cooked? He also gave an example of a rib he had that wasn't perfectly balanced. The salt and heat were elevated in comparison to other qualities. It got a 9 from him because it worked really well and he wanted a rack of them. <-----Judged as presented, on merit. He told me he typically preferred milder Bbq, but that particular combination just worked for him that day. <---ignored personal preference and preconceived ideas.
I think almost all judges try to do the best they can. Some do a better job than others. The OP came in looking for info, and probably got more than he expected
I hope he takes it as intended and found something of value that will help him in the future.