Concern over KCBS comment card vote

[Jeff_in_KC]

John, that's the thing - the software development "broke" it when the alt number was removed from the detail report with the goal of preserving the integrity of the double blind system. I do not know but I'm only assuming that comment cards were not considered when we told the programming company what we needed. Honestly, I'm not sure I would have thought of it myself either. But now that we have a report that does not list alt numbers and a comment card that does, we have to figure out the BEST way to match them up. I have yet to attend a contest that if the organizer and reps are late getting to the awards, the teams aren't frustrated and hollering to get the show on the road. Last thing we need is a cumbersome system that adds time for reps to figure out where comment cards go and be sure they're right. We need a solid, workable solution as soon as possible. Hopefully with input from members, this can be "fixed" sooner than later.

[bover]

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

I've spoken to Mike but just so you know I'm answering your question here... in regards to why the concern over concealing the alt number, I was not a part of discussions in development of the software but I'm guessing that since the software was going to have new features, it was looked upon as a chance to take another step to help preserve the integrity of the double blind system. That's only my guess though.

Thanks for your responses Jeff.

I would argue that the best way to preserve the integrity of the double blind system is to use an alt number assignment system that is more complex than just changing the first digit of a team number. I know not all of the reps use that exact system, but we all know a lot that do.

With the current systems we have in place, adding complexity to that assignment would definitely put more of a burden on the reps and therefore introduce more of a human-error risk. It seems to me like the development of this new scoring software presents a prime opportunity to fix this weakness by having it randomly generate alt numbers and track the associations. With a system like that in place there should be no concerns about printing the alt number on the team report since it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to decipher the assignment processes.

I understand this would require a modification to the software and a re-approval of the board for the team detail report, but that doesn't seem to me like it would put the KCBScore deployment schedule in jeopardy as long as good developers are on the case.

[Slamdunkpro]

Originally Posted by bover

Thanks for your responses Jeff.

I would argue that the best way to preserve the integrity of the double blind system is to use an alt number assignment system that is more complex than just changing the first digit of a team number. I know not all of the reps use that exact system, but we all know a lot that do.

With the current systems we have in place, adding complexity to that assignment would definitely put more of a burden on the reps and therefore introduce more of a human-error risk. It seems to me like the development of this new scoring software presents a prime opportunity to fix this weakness by having it randomly generate alt numbers and track the associations. With a system like that in place there should be no concerns about printing the alt number on the team report since it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to decipher the assignment processes.

I'm still not sure what the perceived problem with the blind judging system is. (and it's really single blind, not double blind). What's the objective? Total secrecy? Never going to happen - if nothing else, the people doing the switch and sort at the turn in table have to see both numbers. So what? When you are switching numbers on 75 boxes in the span of 10 minutes and trying to get them out to tables you just don't have time for skullduggery or shenanigans.

A random system would add considerable time to the number switch process vs the sequential system we're using now. Plus, with the sequential system mis-numbers (they do happen) are caught and rectified easily. With a random system it's likely they would never be caught.

Back to the comment cards - Staple them to the judge's slip. Use the switch list (this has to continue to exist) to identify the the actual team # to the blind # and write the actual number on the comment card during scoring. If you're still concerned about security, require the rep to eat the cross reference list when they're done.

[Fat Freddy]

My head is exploding thinking about stuff I have not ever thought about before with the comment cards.

At this moment I am unsure exactly what to think, but I did want to say thank you to Jeff. You have jumped right in and gotten involved and asked our views and opinions. So thank you much for being a Brethren and a Board member.

[SirPorkaLot]

Originally Posted by Fat Freddy

At this moment I am unsure exactly what to think, but I did want to say thank you to Jeff. You have jumped right in and gotten involved and asked our views and opinions. So thank you much for being a Brethren and a Board member.

+1 for that!

[Jeff_in_KC]

Thank you, but not a big deal, guys... that's what I was elected to do. I said I would be transparent and listen and keep people informed.

I don't want to draw this whole thing out forever - several member suggestions have been presented to the board members via email to think about. Josh, the issue with the proposal you suggested (and it was one I thought to be workable as well) is pretty much what Michael says below you - it would create a nightmare in box number changing at turn-in, especially for larger contests.

I am remaining confident that there will be a workable solution put together before it becomes an issue. Thanks to YOU ALL for your input and expressing your ideas and opinions!

[Slamdunkpro]

Something else to consider is that in a lot of cases low tech is more effective than high tech. If a stapler and a printed piece of paper is all that's needed to keep comment cards then by all means do it.

[CivilWarBBQ]

Originally Posted by Slamdunkpro

I'm still not sure what the perceived problem with the blind judging system is. (and it's really single blind, not double blind).

I disagree. Double blind is the best description of the KCBS system. It's easy for the man-on-the-street to understand the concept that judges don't know who prepared the entries AND cooks don't know who is judging their stuff.

Maybe you're holding to an explicit definition of scientific method, but being overly technical just muddys the water for common folks.

I do agree that the KCBS system has worked remarkably well for many years. Refinement is one thing, but certainly the "Don't fix it if it ain't broke" wisdom applies. (Of course we all seem to agree that the lack of a unique TeamID does constitute broken!)

[swamprb]

IMO there is not enough time to do thoughtful comment cards with 30 minute turn ins.

[Rookie'48]

Sure there is. You only need to write "Too salty", "Too mushy", "Over sauced - can't taste the meat", etc. You don't need to write a book or try to tell the cook how to cook the product - just a simple few words to convey what you think is wrong with it.

Again, this is my opinion only.

[bbq.tom]

Originally Posted by swamprb

IMO there is not enough time to do thoughtful comment cards with 30 minute turn ins.

That's exactly what I used to think, but I was trying to tell the cook too much information. I wasn't trying to tell the cook how to cook, but taking too much time and effort in my comment. Simple is good. They will understand.

[bbq.tom]

Hance (Lake Dogs) has been suggesting a comment card with pre-identified problems so that the judge simply check-marks the appropriate box. I personally think that this is a great idea, but might be difficult with all the different possibilities. If kept VERY general with an "OTHER" category, and still have space to elaborate if necessary, it might just work.

[dmprantz]

Just my personal opinoin, but I'm not a big fan of check-box comment cards. I see it as a way to say "These are things you should be willing to mark down for." The meat is supposedto be judged as presented, and judges should taste it and see what they think, right? If they see pre-filled-out comment cards with "Too Salty" as an option, might a newer judge start tasting food for saltiness and deciding it is "too salty" since it was suggested as a possibillity? I don't think it takes too much time to write "too salty" six times. MHO.

dmp

[CivilWarBBQ]

Originally Posted by dmprantz

If they see pre-filled-out comment cards with "Too Salty" as an option, might a newer judge start tasting food for saltiness and deciding it is "too salty" since it was suggested as a possibillity?

That's a valid concern. It's a known fact that how the questions are asked influence the results of any survey. Food for thought!

[bbq.tom]

Originally Posted by CivilWarBBQ

That's a valid concern. It's a known fact that how the questions are asked influence the results of any survey. Food for thought!

Don't just pass out the comment cards before judging, keep them for after scorecards have been marked and turned in (just like they are supposed to be) then there will be fewer judges "looking" for flaws. It's not perfect, but could potentially save time and provide "better" comments - fewer suggestions on "how to cook".