Ratings rant

[laficion]

...that's it! I am reporting that damn French moderator to the forum owner. Where is Lisa anyway??? -Piggy

Piggy, I'll give that one a 5 on my scale, perfectly complex

[PigFish]

Piggy, I'll give that one a 5 on my scale, perfectly complex

... how does that relate to a 100 point wine scale again? I forget! -Piggy

[El Presidente]

.....you go away for one afternoon

[laficion]

... how does that relate to a 100 point wine scale again? I forget! -Piggy

A ta santé mon frêre .

[BobLobLaw]

How is the cigar scale really all that different? Every grading scale is top heavy. When going on a 100 point scale with 5 letter grades (A,B,C,D,F) the grades are not split evenly every 20%. The top 4 are at 10% intervals and everything below 60% is an F. The cigar scale is a bit more top heavy, but that also makes sense because the lowest possible grades don't exist. On an academic 100 question multiple choice test someone could miss every question and get a zero. So the potential scores truly range from 0-100.

That is not as realistic for a cigar. How could a cigar realistically ever score a zero in any category? Say you are awarding 15 points for appearance and 25 for burn. Seems that an average cigar with maybe a small foot crack or wrapper vein will get a 10-12. And your burn, which required three touch ups and started uneven is an 18-20. But occasionally you get an amazing looking cigar with a perfect shiny wrapper, no veins and oils glistening. Boom that is a 15. And razor sharp burn with no touchups gets a 25 for burn. But although the difference between the two is huge in smoking experience the difference in points awarded is pretty minor. That is because of the default points given because how much can you really knock the quality of a cigar by a small foot crack or requiring a touchup? Point being is you really could never give a zero unless the cigar was shredded or did not burn at all in which case you never would review it anyway. So to me it seems any cigar you review will have a base of around 50 points so the cigar scale is really 50-100. Grade it out the same as the academic scale and you get:

95+ = A

90-94 = B

85-89 = C

80-84 = D

<80 = F

The scale is weighted more towards the top because its easier to accumulate the first 50 points making the last 50 harder to come by. At the end of the day any grading scale you create will be imperfect because to me so much of a cigar's flavor is based on mood, company, venue, what you are eating/drinking, and so on that the final number really does nothing more then give you an overall feel for how much the reviewer enjoyed that particular cigar.

[sloth]

...I still say a cloven hoof is better than 3 toes!

Is that some kind of racial (species-ist) slam against my people (sloths)?

ponyo rosso...*

*Miyazaki references

[El Presidente]

I hoped with my original post to generate a lively discussion. I seem to have succeeded.

The unintended consequence has been generating some bitterness. I have apologized to Rob for giving offense. He and I have smoked, raised a glass and broken bread together. He knows, I hope, that I hove nothing but love and friendship for him. He also knows, as I do, that he is more than able to defend himself against fallacious tongue in cheek "insult" from me.

No offense taken Van.

I came back from the dentist with a swollen mouth and to find my father going in for prostate surgery again today. I wasn't in the mood and fired off. Apologies for that as it is not normally my style.

We will address the rating system in a video review next week. I still don't believe there is an ideal rating method for cigars with holes in each one.

[Trevor2118]

On an academic 100 question multiple choice test someone could miss every question and get a zero. So the potential scores truly range from 0-100.

That would be statistically unlikely. If there are 5 options to select from, then the statistic minium would be 20.

[benjaminbbush]

I also am no rocket scientist (attorney actually) and I certainly am struggling to understand the "scale" since I am no wine connoisseur. It reminds me of the Florida Bar exam scoring system which is 90-160 and somehow a 136 is passing??? Who the hells knows how to scale that??? I have watched many of the videos and I have learned that if they are not talking about the cigar much, then it scores between an 86 and a 91. If the cigar holds their attention and they have great things to say, then it is between a 90 and 96. If the cigar holds their attention because it is complete crap (and they have certainly used that term), then it is below an 86. So while I could not rate the cigars myself, I find the insight and comments extremely enlightening and know to seek out the 90+ and stay away from the 85-!

[ronin]

I use a pretty simple rating system.

I like it and it has potential to be better down the road.

I don't like it and I cannot see any potential for me to like it.

Pretty simple I know but it has worked for me for the last 25 years.

[Rehman]

Simpler still:

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

I don't know.

Could you repeat the question?

[LuciusSulla]

So while I could not rate the cigars myself, I find the insight and comments extremely enlightening and know to seek out the 90+ and stay away from the 85-!

I wouldn't completely do that. Every month after the new CA came out, we could expect a swarm of customers coming to get the 90+ cigars. What I always found amusing were three things:

1. Good cigars we tried to tell these customers about that they paid no attention to at all until CA gave them a 90 or higher and then these customers acting like they had never seen or heard of them before.

2. Cigars that previously had gotten lower scores years ago that recently scored higher and they all of the sudden had to have now.

3. Cigars they had been happily smoking only a week before only to decide were total crap now that they scored under a 90.

I really agree with everyone who says pay attention to tasting notes. The scores are fun in a sporting kind of way, but I really think anything that has good construction and a price that makes since for what kind of smoke it is are worth trying at least once if the tasting notes sounded interesting. I guarantee almost everyone here has had a go to smoke over the years that probably didn't score that well in the usual forums but just tasted right to us. If you never try anything in the 80s, you are likely to miss some of these smokes.

I'm not suggesting one plops down $30 on something that scored an 83 without serious consideration because chances are you will not be happy. However, if the same 83 is $5 or $6, why not give it a go if the brand has a reputation at the very least of being well made. Maybe you will agree; maybe you won't. You really have little to lose and everything to gain in this scenario. You just never know what you may take a shine to despite the reviews. For example, I used to love Pepin Garcia's Vegas Cubanas line, but no one else in the shop cared for them much. I agreed with much of what they said, but damnit, I just enjoyed the stick for whatever reason. At the end of the day, that is the only thing that matters.

BTW, if you don't mind my asking, where did you go to law school? I saw you took the Florida bar.

[PigFish]

.....you go away for one afternoon

Horse pucky mate. You started it all with your Reverse Polish Notation rating system, trying to sell your mates crappy cigars; the shame of it!!!! Han Solo Ayala strikes again. I may have to get on my soapbox again and start undoing some of that H SA influence. -LOL (all in jest for you newer members!)

...by the way, smoked that double pointed RE cigar you sent me today. Nice cigar, first one with some character of the several I have smoked, had some interesting citrus notes and a nice blend. Nice smoke mate... Credit where due. Did Smithy pick it??? -Piggy

[PigFish]

Is that some kind of racial (species-ist) slam against my people (sloths)?

ponyo rosso...*

*Miyazaki references

Okay... so I have insulted just about everyone on this thread by now. Time to find a new thread! -

[sloth]

Okay... so I have insulted just about everyone on this thread by now. Time to find a new thread! -

Gilbert Gottfried lost his Aflac job because of some tasteless "Too-soon" Japan/earthquake jokes... you have a looong way to go yet.

[mazolaman]

Okay... so I have insulted just about everyone on this thread by now. Time to find a new thread! -

There won't be room for insults after the comunist revolutuion....rise up brothers!

[PigFish]

There won't be room for insults after the comunist revolutuion....rise up brothers!

... I was gonna' bring up communism... really, I was! Not using the first 70 or 80 numbers has gotta' be a pinko plot. Capitalists always use, I mean utilize, all the numbers... Each number according equal rating, every rating accounted by need! Hell, it is too late to think of something clever that works!!!

What a *****; being a foregone conclusion! -Piggy

[Deano]

A voice of reason crying out in the wilderness!

I use a pretty simple rating system.

I like it and it has potential to be better down the road.

I don't like it and I cannot see any potential for me to like it.

Pretty simple I know but it has worked for me for the last 25 years.

[ckearns]

Even though I’m a ‘like it or didn’t like it’ kind of enthusiast, I still really enjoy watching and reading commentators/reviewers rate and discuss things that I’m interested in (cigars, wine, spirits, cars, etc.). So here’s my take on rating systems and how I rationalize them.

I think most reviewers that are out there (professional or otherwise), approach ratings from a macro and then a micro level. At the macro level, I believe they use a very simplistic system of assigning a broad Very Good, Good, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory or within a range (100-96, 95-91, etc.) to get the test subject into a proverbial ballpark. Then at the micro level, I believe reviewers now rely on their knowledge and past experiences in assessing a final score. Where is this compared to my other Very Good experiences? Is this 8-9-8 the same, better, or worse than the BHK 54 I had and gave 93 points? How does this year’s vintage compare to last year’s or the greats of years past?

I have a tough time believing that these reviewers assign points within different categories and then sum to a total because their experience allows them to skip these steps and detail.

Lastly, I agree with others that using a 100 point systems is both cosmetic and for simplicity. I’d much rather receive a 95 than an 11.4/12. Cheers.

[Van55]

Not to continue to pummel the decedent equine.

The first point of my rant was that if one is going to condemn a cigar as a "real disappointment" and essentially have NOTHING good to say about it, giving it a numerical rating of 86-87 is a real contradiction in my mind. That's the score that Rob proposed for the Short Robusto T at the end of the video review. It was Ken who rated it out at 83. Again, both numerical ratings seemed quite high for a cigar that Gargett mostly dissed except for the middle portion that he deemed "mildly pleasant" if I recall his words correctly. Both numerical ratings struck me as incredibly generous given (a) the comments during the review and ( the typical 100 point scale as I understand it.

I've long been a critic of the 100 point scale, whether it starts at 0 or starts at 50 or even starts at 80. To me any difference on such a scale between, say 88 and 89 is to small to be meaningful.

I really think adjectival ratings are more meaningful and that the ratings should be limited to no more than ten in number. I have proposed six:

-- Classic cigar

-- Excellent cigar that might become a classic

-- Very good cigar

-- Average cigar

-- Flawed cigar

-- Don't waste your time and/or money

On this scale the Trinidad Short Robusto would seem to be no better than "Flawed."

Cigar scores graphically plotted on these categories would tend toward creating a bell curve, with the majority of cigars in the Average or Very Good class. Of course whether a true bell curve is formed depends to a significant degree on the range of cigars that the reviewers smoke. Those who smoke only or mostly hand-made Cuban cigars would see the curve skew toward the Very Good to Classic end of the scale, in my opinion. Those who are required to review an entire range of cigars from very cheap non-Cubans to high-end Cubans would find their graphs more along the classic bell.

All that said, I think it well to consider again whether numerical, letter or adjectival scores are worthwhile at all if the review is sufficiently comprehensive. (cA's written notes are too cryptic and brief for me to find them useful at all. Aizuddin's video reviews, like Rob's and Ken's, by contrast, tell one everything one needs to know about their opinions of a cigar before they (idiocally???) reduce the cigar to a number.

I know. "Shut up, already!"

[Nocoins]

Don't you have your own forum where you use that system?

[tmac77]

I enjoy Rob's and Ken's reviews and get a good laugh out of them. Of course I don't pay any mind to what either one of them has to say about the quality of the cigar. Between trying to figure out what the hell Ken is wearing and waiting for Rob to finally light the damn thing, I am to distracted to actually remember a bloody thing they had to say about it.

[Van55]

Don't you have your own forum where you use that system?

I have proposed a similar "Smoke Ring" based system at the Habano Cigar Forum. Does that somehow disqualify me from expressing my opinion here and advocating what I think is a better idea than that in use at present?

I have previously advocated a similar rating system here as well as at Cigar Aficionado. If I recall, at one point ElPresidente expressed his ratings in both smoke rings and on the 100 point scale. Freedom of expression and all that, eh mate?

[PigFish]

Not to continue to pummel the decedent equine.

The first point of my rant was that if one is going to condemn a cigar as a "real disappointment" and essentially have NOTHING good to say about it, giving it a numerical rating of 86-87 is a real contradiction in my mind. That's the score that Rob proposed for the Short Robusto T at the end of the video review. It was Ken who rated it out at 83. Again, both numerical ratings seemed quite high for a cigar that Gargett mostly dissed except for the middle portion that he deemed "mildly pleasant" if I recall his words correctly. Both numerical ratings struck me as incredibly generous given (a) the comments during the review and ( the typical 100 point scale as I understand it.

I've long been a critic of the 100 point scale, whether it starts at 0 or starts at 50 or even starts at 80. To me any difference on such a scale between, say 88 and 89 is to small to be meaningful.

I really think adjectival ratings are more meaningful and that the ratings should be limited to no more than ten in number. I have proposed six:

-- Classic cigar

-- Excellent cigar that might become a classic

-- Very good cigar

-- Average cigar

-- Flawed cigar

-- Don't waste your time and/or money

On this scale the Trinidad Short Robusto would seem to be no better than "Flawed."

Cigar scores graphically plotted on these categories would tend toward creating a bell curve, with the majority of cigars in the Average or Very Good class. Of course whether a true bell curve is formed depends to a significant degree on the range of cigars that the reviewers smoke. Those who smoke only or mostly hand-made Cuban cigars would see the curve skew toward the Very Good to Classic end of the scale, in my opinion. Those who are required to review an entire range of cigars from very cheap non-Cubans to high-end Cubans would find their graphs more along the classic bell.

All that said, I think it well to consider again whether numerical, letter or adjectival scores are worthwhile at all if the review is sufficiently comprehensive. (cA's written notes are too cryptic and brief for me to find them useful at all. Aizuddin's video reviews, like Rob's and Ken's, by contrast, tell one everything one needs to know about their opinions of a cigar before they (idiocally???) reduce the cigar to a number.

I know. "Shut up, already!"

I prefer cigar descriptions and narratives; finally a generalized rank, non-numeric, similar to the one above. I would suggest in the above strata that the "crystal ball" projection of future ratings be removed. Mixing the present experience and a potential of future experiences based on clairvoyance is attempting to mix the immiscible. Unknown future performance does not belong in a present tense rating system. Comments regarding the speculative effects of age belong in a narrative.

I have always liked:

Sublime

Excellent

Good

Mediocre (a substitute for average)

Poor

Dog rocket

Just my 2 cts. -Piggy

[Van55]

What you said, Piggy. Your adjectives work as well as mine, and your view that "potential" doesn't belong in current "ratings" has great merit.