Poll Regarding Comment Cards - Please Vote

[G$]

Mandatory cards for a certain score will never wash. Most of my fellow judges are good conscientious people who enjoy the past time of BBQ. The rest are a bunch of dicks who just show up.

Then maybe it will have the intended effect.

If it is 'mandatory', either they do it or they don't judge.

 

[Jorge]

I'm a qualified 'yes'. I could support that, if there was a statistical review after one year. If there is clear statistical evidence that judges were raising their scores to avoid filling out a card I'd like to see the practice ended.

 

[Buster Dog BBQ]

Maybe the comment cards need reworked to help better define the low scores so they are more meaningful to the cooks.

 

[ModelMaker]

Maybe the comment cards need reworked to help better define the low scores so they are more meaningful to the cooks.

Now there's a good idea. The biggest reason for not filling out a card is the time involved and all the info input in order to get it done. Simplify the comment card and it will likely lead to more cooperation.
Ed

 

[Divemaster]

I voted YES. In three years I've only received one card with more than a few 'strange' scores...

OK but when you get 5 8's or 9's on taste and 1 5 then what good is the comment to you. too salty for one judge but fine for the others is no valid input just one rogue judge.

And that is not worth knowing?

Better to know that than wonder if one of your chicken skins somehow got rubbery, etc.

Just knowing is a plus.

Maybe the comment cards need reworked to help better define the low scores so they are more meaningful to the cooks.

Now there's a good idea. The biggest reason for not filling out a card is the time involved and all the info input in order to get it done. Simplify the comment card and it will likely lead to more cooperation.
Ed

I would love for the comment cards to be attached to the score sheets with some standard comments (to salty, no flavor, tough, mushy, ect) and check off boxes as well as an area for free format comments.

 

[theflints01]

I voted yes because I feel in general an oppurtinty to get some info is better than not. However I also feel that the judges will then need additional training in filling out the comment cards so they are meaningful. I was stoked the first time I did a comp where we got comment cards. Then I read them. The very first three comment cards I got read in this order: Pork - Judge 1: "Flavor bland". OK, good to know. Judge 2: "Great Flavor". Awesome. Judge 3: "Too Salty". WTF? I do prefer to get comment cards but have to spend a few minutes to decipher them to try and figure out which ones are legit judges from the ones who are doing this for a free meal. I have to acquire a certain number of continuing education credits to keep my license at work, I think a program for judges would be great also.

 

[Slamdunkpro]

Comment cards are a band-aid on a larger issue - consistency in scoring. You can't have consistent judging without some kind of quantifiable standard to judge (compare) against. "Judge each entry as the cook intended" is not a quantifiable standard. If you want more consistency in scoring then CBJ candidates need to learn more than what red tipped lettuce and sauce pooling looks like in class (As Bentley suggested).

Someone posted an excellent post on "The myth of the CBJ" a while back. The short version is that the whole CBJ program is nothing more than a (very successful) membership gimmick. No one fails and no one is turned away as long as their check clears. KCBS dosen't want it to be difficult to become a CBJ. I'd speculate that casual CBJs are 75% of the membership body. For those running for the board, I'd be very interested in knowing what the year to year CBJ membership retention rate is.

 

[KC_Bobby]

I have mixed feelings, so I'm not going to vote (at the moment). I am thankful for the one comment card I received in 2009, it definitely helped.

To add to ModelMaker and BusterDog's comments, how about a comment card that has different reasons printed on it (too salty, spicy, tough, dry, fatty, overcooked, sloppy, etc) and the judge check marks the reasons and can add a comment accordingly.

Then make it mandatory for judges to fill out if their score in a category is 4 or below OR is 2 points higher/lower than the rest of the table. I don't know if that's the answer.

I do wish the judging class taught more about taste and tenderness - undercooking and overcooking some class room boxes and then having an experienced cook/judge let the class know what he/she would have scored it. Even the best cooks wouldn't always cook a 999 box for a judging class and that would be good as long as the cook was honest on their assessment so the class would get a good representation of what a realistic score would be. Box prep would take way too much time, not sure I have the answer there. Photos of "proven box formats" that get good scores would be nice, but it might hinder real scores when teams turn in something less than perfect garnish (which shouldn't be accounted for).

 

[Alexa RnQ]

how about a comment card that has different reasons printed on it (too salty, spicy, tough, dry, fatty, overcooked, sloppy, etc) and the judge check marks the reasons and can add a comment accordingly.

I think this is entirely reasonable. It's hard to argue that it's too difficult or time-consuming for a judge to check off a box. Hell, they could even make TWO checks!

In fact, let's start a list of attributes that would lend themselves to checkboxes, both negative AND positive:

Appearance
Sloppy, sparse, symmetrical
[Just starting points, as appearance is the most problematic of the three. What else might there be that isn't micromanaging or indicative of personal preference?]

Taste
Salty, spicy, bland, well-balanced, oversauced
[Some of this might get some lop-over from texture, as that can influence perception of taste too, but it can address anything that really sticks out.]

Tenderness
Tough, dry, fatty, overcooked, raw (!)

Just a few checkboxes would really speed the process up, I think, and encourage compliance. Competitors, add whichever ones you've gotten, and judges, which ones would you find most useful? -- I'm off to review our cards.

 

[Bunny]

As a rep I encourage comment cards for low scores only. Getting a high score already tells you you're doing something right. But I would not require it. It would be longer waiting times at the awards and longer times between categories, and heaven forbid if we lost one of those comment cards! Then there are the cards that half of them don't have team number on them or scores. I would keep it voluntarily. It's working fairly well now.

 

[Stoke&Smoke]

My favorite comment cards are the ones where they say they scored you down for some issue that KCBS rules says they aren't supposed to judge on, like food temp.

Not meaning to hijack the thread, but that's a bit of a pet peeve to me. Before we started competing, my wife and I judged, and both of us had times when we were given cold meat. I don't mean room temp, I mean refrigerated cold.

The rules say "

After cooking, all meat​

​

​

​

:​

Must be held at 140° F or above​

​

OR​

Cooked meat shall be cooled as follows:
Within 2 hours from 140° F to 70° F and
Within 4 hours from 70° F to 41° F or less
h. Meat that is cooked, properly cooled, and later
reheated for hot holding and serving shall be reheated
so that all parts of the food reach a temperature of at​

least 165° F for a minimum of 15 seconds.

I would say if I'm served cold meat as a judge, this rule has been violated.


I voted yes as, even though I agree with Ford that the comments are usually useless, I think low scores should be somehow explained.

 

[KnucklHed BBQ]

I'm in the group that would like to see score cards for all scores... PNWBA tries to do this whenever possible. I agree that at least some info is better than wondering what happened...

to the judges that are too lazy to briefly fill out a farking card, buh-bye... dont let the door hitcha!

 

[carlyle]

I voted yes. I like a lot of the previous comments.

My main points are: 1) feedback of any sort is better than none at all.

2) If you give a low score, provide a reason.

3) The reps are going to see the comment cards. If the reason for the low score does not seem valid to the rep, it is a perfect opportunity to talk with that judge.

4) If a judge has a pattern of low scores that are not similar to others at that table, I as a judge chair want to know about it for mentoring, discussion, and possibly not having that judge back next year.

Just my opinion.

 

[Candy Sue]

I'm going to abstain on this one because I just don't know what's best. I do know that it's bad to require a comment card for a specific store. Doing this evens out judges scoring because they don't want to fill out a comment card.

As a cook, the comment cards I've received have been no help to me. In fact, they just p***ed me off. If you read the scores, you know where you slipped up. Most of the time, when I revisit my entries and judge them myself, I agree with the judges' verdict.

What I really do like, is the idea of requesting judges who are out of table range by more than 2 points to fill out a comment card. But, that means that the Table Capt'n will have to do more work examining scores and judges will really have to spend time discussing the entries just served (which is very useful for judges' training).

Good thread!

 

[Bourbon Barrel BBQ]

Then maybe it will have the intended effect.

If it is 'mandatory', either they do it or they don't judge.

I had an event last year where this would have helped me. We had four judges give 9s in tenderness and taste and two judges give us 5s. We felt like it was the same quality chicken that had got us a 1st and 2nd at the previous two events. Now were those 5s because a couple outlier pieces of rubbery skin or did the judge not realize the thigh was not boneless and crunch down on a bone that had the knuckles trimmed off? A quick comment in that area would have been nice. It's rough to win a contest with that recipe then the next event come in 30 out of 32. Scratching our heads indeed.

 

[Divemaster]

As a rep I encourage comment cards for low scores only. Getting a high score already tells you you're doing something right. But I would not require it. It would be longer waiting times at the awards and longer times between categories, and heaven forbid if we lost one of those comment cards! Then there are the cards that half of them don't have team number on them or scores. I would keep it voluntarily. It's working fairly well now.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree that "It's working fairly well now".

At one contest I had brisket scores of 999 989 998 999 979 566 and no comment card. In that same contest, I did receive a comment card for my chicken which we had included drumettes... Comment was "the wings didn't help" - score 989.

Not meaning to hijack the thread, but that's a bit of a pet peeve to me. Before we started competing, my wife and I judged, and both of us had times when we were given cold meat. I don't mean room temp, I mean refrigerated cold.

The rules say "

After cooking, all meat

:

Must be held at 140° F or above ​

​

OR

Cooked meat shall be cooled as follows:
Within 2 hours from 140° F to 70° F and
Within 4 hours from 70° F to 41° F or less
h. Meat that is cooked, properly cooled, and later
reheated for hot holding and serving shall be reheated
so that all parts of the food reach a temperature of at​

least 165° F for a minimum of 15 seconds.

I would say if I'm served cold meat as a judge, this rule has been violated.


I voted yes as, even though I agree with Ford that the comments are usually useless, I think low scores should be somehow explained.
​

I've seen this happen when the box is kept in a cooler right up to the point that the meat is put in. The garnish is sitting at 35-40 degrees and the meat just cools off within moments.

​

 

[lunchlady]

I look at this from a few different perspectives.

As a Cook... comment cards can be very valuable IF they give you some idea of why you got that 4. The ones that say "I didnt like it" you know to chuck 'em. More and more judges are using them the way they were meant to be used. At least in NEBS-land.

As a Judge... I write comment cards for many 5's and everything below a 5, which doesnt happen all that often. And when things go bad - appearance is fantastic but then the chicken isnt cooked, or the pork is way overdone, I let them know. Since I am a cook, I'd want to know what happened if I got a 994 or a 949. I also write them when food is crazy-good. If I am absolutely floored by an entry and give all 9's, yeah, they know it was good cuz of the 9's, but maybe I want them to know that the progression of flavors really worked and the meat was perfectly cooked.

As a Contest Official... I totally understand the work (and time) that it takes to even HAVE comment cards, never mind keep them with the scorecards and get them to the teams. Up heah, there arent many contests that run over 30 teams, so when comment cards are written, they are kept and usually stapled to the teams scoresheets. Makes it a tad easier with smaller contests. But, bigger contests have more officials/reps too. Yep, its a PITA, but IMO if the team went all out cooking, and the judge took the time to write something, we should take the time and effort to return the feedback. When I am in charge, I want cards from judges that score 4s or lower, and I will go straight back to the judge and ask for it. Table Captains can help with this by scanning when the cards come in.

All that being said, I dont think mandatory is the way to go just yet.
Again I find myself agreeing with Jorge. :shocked: Try it out first, see what the stats say, make a decision then.

One last thought... for judges to read stuff like "all comment cards are worthless" ... doncha think that is detrimental?
Im thinking its gonna stop more judges from writing them, period, not just stop the ones we can live without.

 

[Bentley]

I also write them when food is crazy-good. If I am absolutely floored by an entry and give all 9's, yeah, they know it was good cuz of the 9's, but maybe I want them to know that the progression of flavors really worked and the meat was perfectly cooked.

As a competition cook I could not agree more. I do it also...I sometimes feel the Reps do a disservice when they say...you don't need to fill out are card if you give a 9, the teams know it was good...I would like to know why it was a 9. Was it cooked to perfection, did the rub or sauce make it a nine...I guess judges dont want to do that cuz it then become a rub or a suace contest and as we all know it's about the meat...Yeah, right...I keep looking for those naked, plane meat entries out here and am not seeing any!

 

[carlyle]

The situation described by Bourbon Barrel of 2 scores way low compared to the other 4 is what KCBS is making its first steps to identify and remedy by tracking judges. This is a real problem that would make anyone scratch their heads. Comment cards that are used correctly can help solve the mystery of why the score seems out of whack.

The cooks need to keep the heat on KCBS to follow through and get a system in place that works.

The contest organizers need to keep the heat up because frustrated teams who feel they did not get a honest shake are likely not to return.

The judges should be wanting to have a feedback system in place as a check on themselves and an opportunity to improve their craft.

Lunch lady, I can identify with and echo your perspectives as a judge and contest official.

This thread is an example of the kind of discussion that is valuable for all of us and makes me glad that I joined the Brethren.

 

[HoDeDo]

Judges are NOT supposed to judge based on temperature of the food. Any rep will be happy to tell you that. You've misinterpreted the rule.... as a cook, you know your food can sit for 15 min or longer while waiting to get to a judge. It is renumbered, put on a table you havent been on, and opened/viewed, etc. It is very easy for the food to become cold. Esp. on cold/windy/inclement days

At the point it drops below 140, you have 2 hours to get it to 70, 4 more hours to get it to 41 degrees... so any temp you get it at in the window is legal... as long as it was held to at least 140 before you started prepping/slicing. Pork can not have heat applied to it after it is sliced (OMG it might be cooking, but that is a whole other thread) so it has the biggest potential to get cold IMHO.

Not meaning to hijack the thread, but that's a bit of a pet peeve to me. Before we started competing, my wife and I judged, and both of us had times when we were given cold meat. I don't mean room temp, I mean refrigerated cold.

The rules say "

After cooking, all meat​

​

​

​

:​

Must be held at 140° F or above​

​

OR​

Cooked meat shall be cooled as follows:
Within 2 hours from 140° F to 70° F and
Within 4 hours from 70° F to 41° F or less
h. Meat that is cooked, properly cooled, and later
reheated for hot holding and serving shall be reheated
so that all parts of the food reach a temperature of at​

least 165° F for a minimum of 15 seconds.

I would say if I'm served cold meat as a judge, this rule has been violated.


I voted yes as, even though I agree with Ford that the comments are usually useless, I think low scores should be somehow explained.

This is why I voted "no" -- I get comment cards that are a waste of my time to read. Never gotten one that was worth anything. I also disagree with those that think we should make them "easier" with stock statements about spicy, fatty, salty, etc.... After a couple contests, the judges that dont want to use them, just have in thier head that there is a BBQ that is "too spicy", etc. vs. writing down something that they came up with. If I thought the comment cards were worthwhile, I wouldnt want them to be "canned" comments, I would want actual input. (this is where training comes in) BUT, I would rather have the judges the way they are, just without the comment cards.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree that "It's working fairly well now".

At one contest I had brisket scores of 999 989 998 999 979 566 and no comment card. In that same contest, I did receive a comment card for my chicken which we had included drumettes... Comment was "the wings didn't help" - score 989.



I've seen this happen when the box is kept in a cooler right up to the point that the meat is put in. The garnish is sitting at 35-40 degrees and the meat just cools off within moments.

[/LEFT]

The best way to combat the cold with your boxes, is to just spritz vs. chill. Then fill the box. The more hot meat you put in there, the hotter it will be.
I have found a cold papertowel just damp over them, and them sitting in a cambro, is enough to keep them fresh. no ice needed.