VICBREW 2015

[Grainer]

Hypothetically speaking.

Lets pretend you got a third place in the APA category scoring 106. So you get to submit an entry into the APA category at the Nats.

And lets pretend you also put what you called a RED IPA in the Specialty category that scored 120 and the judging comments are things like, "bitterness a the low end for an IPA", and "too good for and IPA" , and "more like an APA"...

Hypothetically would you send the APA that got 106 to the Nationals or rename the red IPA that scored 120 and say its an APA and send it up.

You do not have to enter the same entry, just the same category/style.

John

 

[MartinOC]

You do not have to enter the same entry, just the same category/style.

John

John IS correct, however....

If you have more of the same beer, it really SHOULD be the rightful entry to the Nat's.
If you don't have it, you can re-brew the same beer (time permitting),or enter a substitute.
Swapping just because you think you've got a better beer to put in is considered bad etiquette. :angry:

 

[Andyd]

Untitled3.png

Anyone know what this box is used for?

It's a guide to help judges double check that their point scores are in the right ballpark. The "scale" at the bottom of the page also helps. For example, if I've written comments that allude to a beer being out of style, I might tick this box just so I remember to take that into account when giving a point score.

Andy

 

[Wolfman]

Erm.....indicating Stylistic accuracy & Technical Merit perhaps??

Of the 8 sheets returned 2 had these fillied in. So if they are not filled in why have them on the sheet?

I must say I am disappointed with the feedback I received. The content of the feedback is the most disappointing. I know that these comps are run with volunteers. But if the judges put their hands up to judge please provide some decent feedback, including ticking the boxes. The lack of detail I would expect from the lesser comps, not the state championship. I have paid my money for the privilege of the judges to taste my beer.

I have read some of the feedback others received from other judges. Maybe the less experienced judges judged my beers? But I would have thought the more experienced judges would have been allocated to the bigger categories? Then again I'm not involved in the running of the states premier home brewing event.

I have been told that the judges were rushed as the time was running out. I don't see this as a fair excuse as some beers may have had more attention than others. We all paid the same price to enter and all expect the same amount of detailed feedback.

Having read all the comments in the past few pages, I understand it's run by volunteers whom don't get paid. But I think a 33% increase in entries we all need to do something. What's the fix? **** I don't know. A revamp of the whole comp? Maybe. Move it away from school holidays/footy finals time? Maybe. Better education for people who wish to start judging? Maybe. Running more of the BJCP coarse so as judges are better prepared? Maybe. Running detailed judging education sessions? Maybe. Setting a time limit for each beer so as they all receive the same amount of attention? Maybe. Encouraging clubs to play their part in the running of the comp? Maybe.

The craft beer industry is moving at an incredible speed. The home brewing movement is also tagging along for this ride. More and more people are getting into home brewing, with a 33% increase in entries to this event alone, it's time to do something. This is just my opinion. Take how you want, **** even throw stones at me, abuse me for not helping out, call me a sore loser if you wish. But something needs to change otherwise it'll all turn to ****!

That's my rant!

 

[Mardoo]

Traditional pizzas aren't "piled high" with anything [emoji6]

...aaaaand traditional beer doesn't have chiles in it. But I'd consume them both as I drag my knuckles around the place.

 

[Andyd]

Wolf man,

I agree that in many instances the level of feedback could be lifted from the outset.

Something I have the "luxury" of seeing is the progression of the decline in feedback quality as a flight progresses. Most people start with quite good feedback and clear handwriting at the commencement of a flight. By the end, many have degraded to very brief and sometimes uninformative comments, and poor handwriting.

I've found that this usually ramps up about half way through a long flight, indicating that flights should really be set up to be significantly shorter than they currently are. Of course, this is only possible with a large pool of judges.

There will always be judges who provide less than desirable feedback - whether novices, under informed or just lazy. But the majority are there to help Brewers in the community to improve. Remember, they're not there just to earn a crust

Not making excuses for the offending sheets - they frustrate me as well, just as a judge observer.

Sorry you didn't get the feedback you were after... Don't let it discourage you from entering comps in general - I've had many judges who have provided great feedback.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Spiesy]

This is the State comp, not a specific club comp. All Melbourne based brew clubs that wish to compete should could perhaps be 'encouraged' to help volunteer at the event. Perhaps a number based on the amount of club members that club has (i.e club 'X' has 20% of the Melbourne members, they provide 20% of the volunteers)?

 

[evvy.rogerson]

Thanks to the organisers, judges, stewards and special thanks to Michael Bowron for the detailed feedback on my scoresheet.

 

[Blind Dog]

Not exactly sure what you want in terms of feedback, and not seeing your sheets I clearly can't comment. The feedback I received was pretty decent - generally fairly brief, but quite useful. Some was clearly crap and certain judges should be aware that I am completely incapable of producing any flaws in any of my beers. I'm just pushing styles boundaries. A Helles tasting of crisp green apples is a wonderful thing. Not my fault that the idiot who wrote the style guidelines is a fool

At the end, the score and comments are just the opinions of 2 or 3 fellow home brewers, who may or may not have a better / more experienced palate that you, so you really should compare their comments with your own notes, and maybe taste your beer(s) again with their comments and your own notes to evaluate their accuracy.

I know that on Sunday the average time per beer was around 15 minutes, which is a pretty reasonable amount of time to evaluate, discuss and score a beer but isn't going to leave a great deal of time to write detailed notes afterwards. Even at that pace you're talking about something way over 500 volunteer hours to run the competition once you add the stewards, clean-up, sorting bottles, picking up entries etc. The primary purpose of any competition is surely to find the best entries; I can't think of another type of competition where the provision of feedback is an inherent part of the process. I know homebrew comps i entered back in the UK just rated the beers against each other with nothing provided by way of feedback, and talking to friends involved in other hobbies, they don't appear to get anything - sometimes not even a score


I'm not on the committee, or a judge (although I think Princess is the technical term?), just enjoyed stewarding. I think there are issues that need to be addressed and I'm sure they will be, but I also think we're in a pretty good place. I mean over 600 entries for fark's sake, that's epic

 

[Grainer]

Went back and had a look at the scoresheets I wrote being a novice judge.. Things I noticed and good now that I have had a look.

-The initial 3-4 int he flight flight had minimal comments...sorry...probably due to getting into the swing of things and about half way through the flight I found myself giving more useful comments and suggestions on recipe improvements and fermentation issues from my own experiences.
- I found inconsistencies in filling out the sheets.. e.g.. Wolfmans comments. I did not always fill out stylistic accuracy only 50% of them this was done. I like some of the other scoresheets I have sen that describe beer faults etc on the sheets..they are really helpful and help prompt addional feedback (as attached)
- I found the more the flight went on the more useful my comments were..surprising cause I expected to see some deterioration, but it was exactly the opposite. With a flight of 40 something?? I think we did well between the 2 of us. with about 23 or so done on the first day. It didn't so much help that both calibration beers were either buttery or autolysis on either day but you probably expect that from the brewing company.

all in all a good experience to go back and have a look.

I found my comments on my judging sheets mostly useful and I will now be spending a few days improving my recipes ..Thanks heaps to all the judges.

 

[Fourstar]

Hypothetically speaking.

Lets pretend you got a third place in the APA category scoring 106. So you get to submit an entry into the APA category at the Nats.

And lets pretend you also put what you called a RED IPA in the Specialty category that scored 120 and the judging comments are things like, "bitterness a the low end for an IPA", and "too good for and IPA" , and "more like an APA"...

Hypothetically would you send the APA that got 106 to the Nationals or rename the red IPA that scored 120 and say its an APA and send it up.

Paul,

Bring both along to the meeting tonight (if you have enough) and i will volunteer myself as someone who judges how i think they will fall in the Nats.

In short, just because it gets 120 in specialty as a red IPA doesn't mean it stylistically fits an APA. IPA to APA translates well (and can stand out as a hoppy-er IPA) but the reverse doesn't translate so well (an APA as an IPA is underwhelming on the hop factor usually.)

Cheers,
Braden

 

[Fourstar]

Of the 8 sheets returned 2 had these fillied in. So if they are not filled in why have them on the sheet?

To speak frankly, as someone who judges regularly i often forget to fill this out but I deliberately don't omit it. Why? Probably due to the amount of detail i put into my notes and likely because its pushed off to the side of the scoresheet. You're too focused on evaluating and writing more than focusing on remembering to "tick that box" pushed off to the bottom left. its almost like one of those boxes on a form that state "for admin use only" and you end up skimming over it. It's just the way it is. Feel free to drag me over the coals for it but i can attest its not out of laziness (at least on my part.)

Saying all that, if from my notes and relevant scoring if you cannot discern where your beer sits within the style. Feel free to call me out on it. You deserve more from your 8 bucks.

As an arm waving exercise, if you're scoring 40+ and its all positive feedback, its likely due to minor stylistic interpretation.
if your sub 30 and you have major production faults in the noted, its likely technical merit being the shortfall and or some style faults.
if you're 30-40 its likely a combination of the two (minor issues).


Cheers,
Braden

 

[Toper]

mis post,can't find the delete

 

[MartinOC]

Wolfman,

Re: your post @ #404 above....

Yep, LOTS of stuff to be worked-out, discussed & resolved, as there ALWAYS is after every comp. How did the Merri Mashers' debrief go? Did you even have one? I dunno, as I didn't see anything on the facebook pages after it was finished. No-one asked me for my notes or feedback....Huh?? How do you expect to learn & improve?

Every year we (the committee) discuss what we can do to improve the way things go & lots of little changes get implemented. This year it seems that, with ever-increasing numbers, things will have to change in larger amounts.

Like I've said previously, there's going to be ROBUST conversations between all the stake-holders to work-out how to deal with all the issues which arose from this one. It was a complete ****-storm.

We only get ONE go at this each year & even after 20 years of doing it, we're always looking for ways to improve.

I don't have all the answers. Neither does anyone else, but if we work together cooperatively, things will improve (as they have been for 20 years).

I get the feeling that everyone looks up to Vicbrew as the premier comp. in Victoria & just simply expects that it all works perfectly smoothly every time. Unlimited budget, resources & manpower available. Well, it doesn't.

In order to make it work for everybody, then EVERYBODY needs to contribute. The Committee coordinates, but can't do everything.

Are we a cohesive community or a bunch of narcissistic individuals who expect to just pay $8 for quality feedback on their beers & make no contribution?

 

[manticle]

Wolfman's criticisms are valid but are criticisms for judges to sit up and take notice rather than vicbrew committee/organisers.

If you're going to judge, make an effort for it to be useful.
Think about what you'd like to receive as a competitor.

 

[MartinOC]

Thanks, Manticle. You're right. I forgot to include/mention that bit in my unassailable rantage....I think I'll have another beer... :chug:
I guess to distill my thoughts (sorry to mention the "D" word...), the Committee puts-in a huge amount of effort to bring this thing together over 12 months, only to be let-down by a lack of commitment from the very people it seeks to serve.

 

[Yob]

if you're scoring 40+ and its all positive feedback, its likely due to minor stylistic interpretation.

now this is exactly where I sit, but there isnt much by way of comment as to where the minor flaws are so incredibly difficult to change things to get those extra 3-5 points... particularly when you only get 8 out of 10 and also says no faults :blink: ...

Judges names omitted for privacy





dont get me wrong, Im stoked with the scores and the feedback, itd just be a little more helpful for the next iteration if I had some guidance as to where I lost those few points.

again, cheers to everyone involved.

 

[manticle]

To speak frankly, as someone who judges regularly i often forget to fill this out but I deliberately don't omit it. Why? Probably due to the amount of detail i put into my notes and likely because its pushed off to the side of the scoresheet. You're too focused on evaluating and writing more than focusing on remembering to "tick that box" pushed off to the bottom left. its almost like one of those boxes on a form that state "for admin use only" and you end up skimming over it. It's just the way it is. Feel free to drag me over the coals for it but i can attest its not out of laziness (at least on my part.)

Saying all that, if from my notes and relevant scoring if you cannot discern where your beer sits within the style. Feel free to call me out on it. You deserve more from your 8 bucks.

As an arm waving exercise, if you're scoring 40+ and its all positive feedback, its likely due to minor stylistic interpretation.
if your sub 30 and you have major production faults in the noted, its likely technical merit being the shortfall and or some style faults.
if you're 30-40 its likely a combination of the two (minor issues).


Cheers,
Braden

To speak frankly, as someone who judges regularly i often forget to fill this out but I deliberately don't omit it. Why? Probably due to the amount of detail i put into my notes and likely because its pushed off to the side of the scoresheet. You're too focused on evaluating and writing more than focusing on remembering to "tick that box" pushed off to the bottom left. its almost like one of those boxes on a form that state "for admin use only" and you end up skimming over it. It's just the way it is. Feel free to drag me over the coals for it but i can attest its not out of laziness (at least on my part.)

Saying all that, if from my notes and relevant scoring if you cannot discern where your beer sits within the style. Feel free to call me out on it. You deserve more from your 8 bucks.

As an arm waving exercise, if you're scoring 40+ and its all positive feedback, its likely due to minor stylistic interpretation.
if your sub 30 and you have major production faults in the noted, its likely technical merit being the shortfall and or some style faults.
if you're 30-40 its likely a combination of the two (minor issues).


Cheers,
Braden

Pretty sure your scoresheets are not the kind he's referring to. I never tick those boxes either but always make an effort to write legibly, clearly and with some useful detail. Can't promise I get it right every time (like andyd says mid flight is often the hardest) but I've seen some very lazy/half arsed filling out of sheets, some by novice judges, some by bjcp judges at Nats.
Heard experienced judges tell novices not to waste time on a beer that won't be a placegetter or has major issues (when feedback is arguably most useful) yet received scores of 40+ for a winner with about 3 words on the whole page.

I've seen your sheets. They are not these.

 

[Wolfman]

Wolfman,

Re: your post @ #404 above....

Yep, LOTS of stuff to be worked-out, discussed & resolved, as there ALWAYS is after every comp. How did the Merri Mashers' debrief go? Did you even have one? I dunno, as I didn't see anything on the facebook pages after it was finished. No-one asked me for my notes or feedback....Huh?? How do you expect to learn & improve?

The IPA comp went well. However we had no where near the entries vicbrew had. The committee thought we didn't need a de de breif as it all ran smoothly. But feel free to pass on your comments.

[/quote]

Every year we (the committee) discuss what we can do to improve the way things go & lots of little changes get implemented. This year it seems that, with ever-increasing numbers, things will have to change in larger amounts.

Like I've said previously, there's going to be ROBUST conversations between all the stake-holders to work-out how to deal with all the issues which arose from this one. It was a complete ****-storm.
[/quote]

Please use my suggestions as they maybe some questions you might like to ask.


[/quote]
We only get ONE go at this each year & even after 20 years of doing it, we're always looking for ways to improve.

I don't have all the answers. Neither does anyone else, but if we work together cooperatively, things will improve (as they have been for 20 years).[/quote]

I don't have he answers either. Was just trying to provide some feedback.


[/quote]
I get the feeling that everyone looks up to Vicbrew as the premier comp. in Victoria & just simply expects that it all works perfectly smoothly every time. Unlimited budget, resources & manpower available. Well, it doesn't.[/quote]

Yes it is the premier comp of a the state as this is what gets you to be he nats. However without detailed feedback some of us will never get there. How do we improve with out being told where to improve ?

[/quote]

In order to make it work for everybody, then EVERYBODY needs to contribute. The Committee coordinates, but can't do everything.
Once again feel free to use my comments.

[/quote]
Are we a cohesive community or a bunch of narcissistic individuals who expect to just pay $8 for quality feedback on their beers & make no contribution?
[/quote]

Yes we are a community and it's not all about the money. We all won't to improve our beers as that's what entering comps is about. One thing I've never understood about horse racing is why would you enter the horse if you didn't think it was going to win?

You seem to have taken my comments personally. I understand that your not happy about how it all unfolded. No real reason to take it out on someone who's trying to help. Just my opinion is all it was. Yes I didn't help out. Yes I had other things on.

My beef about comps has always been the feedback. It's easy to say the beer is ****, but I want to know why and how can I improve for next time. One of the forms from our own comp had bugger all comments scored me well but then got calibrate. Fair enough I thought as there was 2 other judges so has to be within 7 points. But at least tell me you liked it and you got calibrated down. One thought I had was judging the judges. How do they improve their judging if I hey don't know how the person they judged feels about he feedback? Just a trying to think of ways to improve for all of us.

Again it wasn't a dig at you or the committee. Was just trying to provide constructive feedback on the comments I'd seen in the previous pages.

Back in my box I go.

 

[manticle]

Your feedback is excellent S and as I said, needs to be taken on by judges at all levels.