Comment Cards-Mandatory?

[Jorge]

Originally Posted by Hawg Father of Seoul

Here's my problem with tracking a judge's performance. They would have to evaluate the judge against all tables they have judged to see if they are actually a statistical outlier. I doubt that any one in KCBS could handle the stats for that. (You could use the I/O psychology program at MSU to do it)

The entire beauty of the current program is that you have the "samples" of judges that resemble randomness. Sure you have some systematic variance and some silos, but it is better than medical "random samples".

If they start a BBQ inquisition, they may rid the system of GOOD variance. Believe it or not a LOT of these scores that are all over the place are accurate and would hold true if the same sample was provided to a larger audience. Is that not the point, to give an accurate score?

I think you are probably ahead of the curve at this point.

The software will have the ability to collect the data necessary to do the analysis. Just about everybody has an opinion about what it will show. Having worked with statistics quite a bit I've got no doubt that some trends will emerge quickly. But, based on that experience I'd suggest not making any decisions until a year of data had been captured, and used to test various algorithms.

I don't know if anyone currently employed or serving on the board has the experience to do the analysis or consult, but I know of at least one member that contacted me while I served on the board that does. I don't see any hurdles that can't be negotiated.

[Hawg Father of Seoul]

I think you are probably ahead of the curve at this point.

Pun intended?

Not trying to be disrespectful at all. If correctly handled, the data will speak for itself. The problem is that a lot of people think that they understand stats. A few easy questions to weed out the posers- 1. How do you handle outliers? 2. What if they are outliers in X and Y space? 4. How and when do you correct for skewness and kurtosis? 3. What program do you use for nonparametric data?

These are all super simple questions for any one that is allowed a crack any commercial data set.

[Smoke'n Ice]

Based on currently available data, the BOD, the committee responsible for the the Score program, the programmers for the score program, the owers of the software company responsible for the score program do not have a clue about these last posts. Any analysis will require a new committee, and good luck. The folks in the technology committee are not taking advantage of the resources available to the orgainization from the membership.

The bottom line is "Don't Hold Your Breath!"

[Outnumbered]

Originally Posted by Svenmac

The best thing Kcbs could ever do is have all judges shadow a team and see how much $$$$

Why does this matter? We all know the cost of participating. If I get a 7 and the judge thinks it's the worst thing he/she has ever tasted, what does a 7 tell me about that?

When I've judged, the table captain tried to tell me all this. When I said I cooked contests, the TC and the other judges quickly stopped telling me anything. I wanted to learn from them about what judges were thinking. A lot of times, it wasn't what I was, that's for d$#^ sure.

My point is that if you're going to play this game, learn the game. If not, get out. It costs money like anything other "sport" or game.

Personally, if I'm going to spend this much money to compete, I want to get a true indication of how my food is being received.

[Svenmac]

I play the game very well thank you and I pay the costs. Go back and read most if this has been hashed out. If you get a 7 and truely deserve a 7 then you are a low to mid packer and never will win a contest. My whole point was when you go to contests and 5 judges give you all 9s and the last judge gives you 777. I do have a problem with that. But I'm not restarting the debate for sake of the board

[Bentley]

Originally Posted by Svenmac

The best thing Kcbs could ever do is have all judges shadow a team and see how much $$$$ and time the cooks put into a contest.

I have been a Chief Cook and Judge for 11 years...Do you think when I judge, I really care how much they spent to do it? That was their choice!

I am also gonna score the way I do whether you track me or not. I agree you should be able to articulate ANY score you give and I can. If it comes down to KCBS does not like that my scores deviate too much from the others, you better be ready to ban me, cuz it aint gonna change.

[G'pa Herb]

Originally Posted by Svenmac

My whole point was when you go to contests and 5 judges give you all 9s and the last judge gives you 777. I do have a problem with that. But I'm not restarting the debate for sake of the board

According to the official KCBS 2013 Official Rules and Regulations Judging Procedures, under Judging Procedures, rule #7: "The low score is thrown out.", basically DQing that judge. How is this not a suitable "fix" to the stated problem?

[Q-Dat]

Ok does anyone really think that anyone here is suggesting that if the judges see what we spend and how hard we work that they should have sympathy on us and give higher scores?

No really I am asking a serious question. Does anyone ACTUALLY think that ANYBODY is dumb enough to suggest that EXACTLY the way I put it in the first sentence?

Ok nobody? Good.

The suggestion is not being made to improve the judging of judges on this site. What it COULD do is maybe give some judges who have far too cavalier of an attitude about judging, a better scope and comprehension of the responsibility and the privilege that they have taken on. A judge who likes to just put 7's out of mental laziness might be encouraged to step it up if they see what we have invested.

The idea of judges cooking with a team was NEVER intended to even begin to change criteria. Only attitudes.

Now is this idea realistic? Who knows...

[Svenmac]

At least you get what I'm saying.

Guys you are taking my statement out of context. Like I stated before I don't care if your lotta bull with a 300k setup or joe bob with a WSM I made that statement for the exact reason Qdat just said

I know they drop the lowest but it shouldn't happen in first place

[Outnumbered]

^^^But there are times that could happen. (And I honestly believe we're agreeing here.)

For instance, if you turn in 7 bones and one wasn't done properly and it was tough. The other 5 judges got a bone with good tenderness and you get 8s and 9s, but that 6th judge selected the wrong bone and a jackhammer wouldn't pull it off the bone. So you get a 7 for tenderness. By most judging standards today, that would give you a 7 in tenderness, but the scoring range says that should actually be a 4 or maybe even a 3.

But nobody is going to score a 4 because the "teams spend too much money" or "I don't want to fill out a comment card."

I don't see how giving me a 7 to make me feel better about myself when I really deserved a 4 for tenderness is going to help anyone.

But if you're going to go that way, you have to make sure you're going to get an honest opinion from all the judges. If not, you're opening the door to really getting a lucky table draw for a win. If that happens, I hope I get the table of nice old ladies who don't want to hurt anybody's feelings and everyone else gets the judges who do it correctly.

[Bentley]

Originally Posted by Q-Dat

The suggestion is not being made to improve the judging of judges on this site. What it COULD do is maybe give some judges who have far too cavalier of an attitude about judging, a better scope and comprehension of the responsibility and the privilege that they have taken on. A judge who likes to just put 7's out of mental laziness might be encouraged to step it up if they see what we have invested.

I don't think that anything you do is going to effect change in judges like that, it is just a pit fall of competing...If KCBS thinks tracking them will help, by all means do it, just please have a system in place to be able to deal with the judge...or it is all just blowing smoke.