Vince RnQ
is Blowin Smoke!
It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!
New KCBS scoresheet
- Thread starter big matt
- Start date
big matt
is one Smokin' Farker
I guess this thread is proof of what you said would happen.
Smokin' Joe
is one Smokin' Farker
I'll admit that all the statistics stuff is over my head, but I don't understand how random is better than applying what we know about a judges history? I look at it this way -
1) if it gives me more information about why my stuff scored the way it did, thats a good thing (perfect? no, but I believe more is better).
2) I believe some people arent qualified to be KCBS CBJ's - If this can help indentify them for re-training/elimination, then I support it. This isn't about all judges giving everyone a 9, its about the few judges who consistenly score 3-4 full points under everyone else. There arent millions of them, but they do exist
I understand point 2 might not be popular and could get a little scary with the wrong implemention, but I think its necessary for the continued growth of KCBS.
1) if it gives me more information about why my stuff scored the way it did, thats a good thing (perfect? no, but I believe more is better).
2) I believe some people arent qualified to be KCBS CBJ's - If this can help indentify them for re-training/elimination, then I support it. This isn't about all judges giving everyone a 9, its about the few judges who consistenly score 3-4 full points under everyone else. There arent millions of them, but they do exist
I understand point 2 might not be popular and could get a little scary with the wrong implemention, but I think its necessary for the continued growth of KCBS.
big matt
is one Smokin' Farker
I feel exactly the same way Joe.
Slamdunkpro
Babbling Farker
1. I agree if the information is valid. If it's just the illusion of information (again think roulette history boards) then acting on it may be detrimental.
2. The KCBS position seems to be that if the check clears that person is qualified to be a judge. Again the age old question - How many people have failed the CBJ class?
What about the few judges that constantly score 2 to 3 points higher than the rest of the table? Will they be retrained? I can see the future and it's score cards full of 8,8,8.:wacko:
Smokin' Joe
is one Smokin' Farker
No, I like those judges so they can stay :shock: :mrgreen: In all seriousness, yes they should also be retrained or removed. Again, implementation is key here. Otherwise the movement to 888 in a real concern
musicmanryann
is Blowin Smoke!
Everybody scoring 888's would be a concern if you looked at a particular judge's average score across contests. If you compared their score against the average of the other 5 judges at their table every contest, this wouldn't be an issue. This is what ique mentioned earlier in the discussion. A judge could be indexed on how they deviate from the other judges at their table for each entry.
Last edited:
TheJackal
Full Fledged Farker
How is Average Judge Score on the sheet defined? I thought it would be that judge's average score for the 6 entries in that category only. However, I did the math from my chicken table form last weekend and it doesn't add up. Is it that judge's average for the entire contest across all 24 samples?
Candy Sue
is one Smokin' Farker
I asked for clarification on Judge Average Score.
It's the sum of that judge's scoring on that day at that contest for all 4 categories.
It's the sum of that judge's scoring on that day at that contest for all 4 categories.
musicmanryann
is Blowin Smoke!
Yessir!
TheJackal
Full Fledged Farker
Isn't that comparing apples to oranges (or chicken to ribs?!?)? That may help with tracking judges but it is slightly less meaningful to me as a competitor when analyzing my own scores then.
kellym
Found some matches.
You also have the judges that never score under a 7. I actually had a CBJ tell me he gives a 7 just for turning in because he doesn't want to disrespect the team. Fortunately he wasn't judging (and never will) at one of my contests. No amount of discussion would change his mind either.
kellym
Found some matches.
Online Team Name
Everyone should be aware of how the team name is recorded. The team name you supply to the organizer is what will print on your results sheet. The team name associated with your KCBS membership number that you supplied to the organizer is what will display in the online results screen. If the wrong team name is displayed online contact Karrin in the KCBS office. She can change your team name and correct the online results to show the proper name. Her email is kmurphy@kcbs.us
Everyone should be aware of how the team name is recorded. The team name you supply to the organizer is what will print on your results sheet. The team name associated with your KCBS membership number that you supplied to the organizer is what will display in the online results screen. If the wrong team name is displayed online contact Karrin in the KCBS office. She can change your team name and correct the online results to show the proper name. Her email is kmurphy@kcbs.us
Pappy Q
is Blowin Smoke!
Damn, I knew I should've paid closer attention in that college statistic class 35 years ago
Muzzlebrake
Babbling Farker
You guys have convinced me, statistical analysis has no place in sports. And to think I have been wasting my time all these years paying attention to things like batting averages, ERA, yards per rush/catch, completion percentage, goals against average........
sdbbq1234
is Blowin Smoke!
Candy Sue
is one Smokin' Farker
I'm wrong! The average is for all categories at that event that that judge judged.
Tiki Wolf
Knows what a fatty is.
I've read through most of this, and as a competitor, yeah, I'd like to see who I went up against on a table and how I did. But if I get a 6 or a 7, it's still only a number and doesn't tell my why it was a 6 or 7. Was it bland, or was it too spicy, salty, sweet, tangy, overdone, underdone? And if it's a 9, what was it that made it a 9?
I'd much rather see mandatory comment cards for each entry. That's the valuable feedback I'm looking for. I know that would be a logistical nightmare, the judging would take forever and the awards wouldn't be until after midnight.
Just my $0.02. I'll go back to sleep now....
I'd much rather see mandatory comment cards for each entry. That's the valuable feedback I'm looking for. I know that would be a logistical nightmare, the judging would take forever and the awards wouldn't be until after midnight.
Just my $0.02. I'll go back to sleep now....
TheJackal
Full Fledged Farker
Wow. So if that judge also sampled a chef's choice, sauce, and dessert entries they would be included in the average? :shock:
Candy Sue
is one Smokin' Farker
That's correct! Brings up another statistical thing though, how many contests will have ancillaries that are judged by the same judges?
