Let the Board know judging slips and comments

Merl,

IMO, it's not a good thing -- the comment slips. I really don't have a problem with the descriptive judging slips, though some folks do have a problem with the words chosen to describe each number score. Comment cards in Hammond just made me mad...didn't seem to relate to any specific judge's score. I don't think most judges are competent to tell a cook how to cook. When you know how to read the score sheet, a comment isn't helpful -- unless it's specific i.e., "too salty," "too sweet," "too tender," etc.

My 2 cents, keep the cards, lose the comments. Change terrific to something else. No starting point.

Thanks for asking!

I forgot...take "average" out!

We had three BOD members at Kings mountain,and Troy was cooking by us.

They should have gotten an earful of how the cooks felt.

I must admit that the new system and the slips were merely part of the debacle.

Tom
FireHouseBBQ

quote:

Originally posted by Candy Sue:
..I don't think most judges are competent to tell a cook how to cook

I got a laugh out of that one Candy. Think about it, but they ARE good enough to judge what we present.

LOL

Not sure, but get specific feedback from the cooks Merl, not ..."throw it out". Why? Is the system better with comments. Are the comment fields just not being used by judges right? Maybe the judges need different instructions on what to say.

If the comments are being used incorrectly, just remember back to the first scoring system, it didn't work that well.

Remember back to why this was done.

I have to disagree with you Candy. I know how to read a score sheet and it doesn't explain why a judge at the table when I get 5 8's and 9's gives me a 2. If he say's "spoiled food" or something else, all it does is define what the score was for.

I think, the main complaint is being missed. WHY is it making cooks mad? Maybe, just maybe, it's pointing out flawed judging and that judges are defining their own scoring system and not using what they were taught. From what I've heard, it IS pointing out flawed judging and that is an important analysis point if it's true.

How many times have you heard "I don't like salty, I don't like sweet, I don't like pork/chicken/beef/"

I've heard each of those directly from a table I've judged at.

Analyze the information and give the cooks a chance to respond, but analyze the response, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Russ

At Kings Mountain,there were no judging fields.

There were blank slips of paper in the middle of the table.

Examples:

Your box lid had too much sauce,so I marked down.

Possibly this could have been directed to the reps,that let volunteers stack heavy pork boxes,instead of carrying them on sheet pans?

Your sauce on the chicken was not sweet enough,so I marked down. Oh well.

Score of nine: Excellent

Score of eight: Terrific

Huh?

Maybe there weren't enough language scholars at the tables and they got confused?

I like a 6 point scale instead of 9. Have 4 5 6 be above average, 3 2 1 below average. If it's good, it's a 4, if it's really good, it's a 5, if it's exceptional, it's a 6. Same going the other way. Now there are too many numbers and the judges get confused.

With a 6 point system, the first thing a judge would determine - is it above or below average. Then it's either good, really good, or exceptional.

If it's below average, it's either bad, really bad, or terrible.

Just my $.02

I welcome the comment cards and hope some of the problems can get ironed out. I think most of my comments from Kings Mountain were pretty much right on. One thing that I think happens a lot is that some cooks think their bbq is the best no matter what. I have to keep reminding myself that I am cooking for the judges whoever they may be and they do not neccesarly like what I like but it is still about pleasing the judges so if they want to call pot roast great bbq I will fix them pot roast.
My opinion is worth what you pay for it.