KCBS Judging Update

[DawgPhan]

Not to be critical of the new judging sheet, but it seems like they could ease everyone's mind by providing some of the research or who evaluated the results from the test. That score sheet is basically the heart of the whole kcbs competition. Making changes to it shouldnt be done because it seemed to work or because it looked good. It seems like the whole sheet should have been created by a professional company who creates survey sheets and then it should have been tested by people who test these types of products.

Also the testing for it should have taken place somewhere besides a contests where you cant really control all of the variables and you are testing something on someone elses time. Certainly a test was going to have to be made in a real situation, but that should have been after countless tests under controled situations. You shouldnt be getting answers when you test it at comps but just confirming what you already knew.

While the intentions were honest the impression that I got was that KCBS decided to change the scoring sheet and the only support for that was that it seemed to work better when we tried it a couple of times...and that isnt and shouldnt cut it with the competition folks...

 

[Pig Headed]

I personally think that the old scoring way worked fine. I did like the idea of comment sheets and wished the BOD had ok'd them. I think the reason for the change was the overwhelming complaints about the inconsistant judging. While I'm pretty new at competitions, I think that the consistancy of the top teams, bears witness that the old system worked.

 

[Sir Smoke A Lot]

I would have liked to see comment cards approved. I did not get any at the few contests I did last year, but I think it would have been useful. I don't really have an opinion on the new scoresheets. I guess having a little more "definition" applied to each number may be helpful. Time will tell, I guess!

 

[eurycea]

You can't just say "average" without defining the population. For test scores, it's the average within a class, or within a school, or within a state. For a any set of data, the average is calculated across the specified set of data.

100% correct. And poor means lacking money - how are judges suppose to know if the entry lacks money??? And bad is a song by Michael Jackson - what are the odds of that showing up in one of the boxes.

Do you think it is possible that the board doesn't mean average in the mathmatical sense in the same way they don't mean poor in the lacking money sense?

 

[StLouQue]

I agree with you agreeing with me. However,

You can't just say "average" without defining the population. For test scores, it's the average within a class, or within a school, or within a state. For a any set of data, the average is calculated across the specified set of data.

I understand where you're going... But as a judge, what's wrong with assigning my own criteria for appearance, taste, and flavor – and you, yours? That which I deem average (or ordinary) is, at least on my scoresheet.

So my question - If KCBS wants judges to compare each entry to some "average" that they have in their head, what is that average composed of? All BBQ they've ever tasted, or some subset of all BBQ they've ever tasted, or some imaginary ideal 'average'?"

I think what you are describing is more of a "standard."

Then again, I may be over-thinking.