scoring systems

[Ken Gargett]

when rob set up the forum, we chatted about a few things. my recollection ws that the only thing where he at all listened to me was with the 'voluntary' scoring system. i think he wanted it out of five stars and i preferred the 100 point system. we have been using the 100 point system and wondering if anyone had any thoughts. happy with it? prefer something else. i did agree with rob that it doesn't really matter which is used as long as we have some consistency and a system that everyone can understand. the inevitable problem is that some are hard markers and others not. i might rate something 90/100 and someone else may have it at 87 or 93, not because they think it better or worse but just because we all have our own levels - not sure we can do much about that.

what caused me to raise this was the post from josie67 about the latest mystery cigar. we are doing these out of 100 and it seems to be working. i tend to relate things back to the wine background where 100 seems fairly common now, especially in america, but the official systemk in australia is out of 20. again, theoretically this should be out of 3 for colour, 7 for nose and 10 for palate but no judge actually does that - it is just a mark out of 20.

now josie67 splits it up for cigars, which i must confess had never occurred to me. if i may use his example with the mystery cigar -

Construction 1/2

Burn 2/3

Draw 18/20

Flavor 68/75

Final score: 89/100

first comment is that whatever works for each person is the right way to go for them but this got me thinking - do others split up like this? i haven't.

then, if others do, what divide for the scores? would others put more or less weight in these categories? any others to consider? for me, aftertaste is important.

any thoughts?

[Colt45]

I agree that most rating systems will always be based a bit on personal tastes and preferences. Breaking the points down would help somewhat, but unless everyone is

using the same breakdown system, it becomes even more arbitrary.

Ex: you give construction a max of 2 points, I give a max of 5, etc.

Personally, I like a somewhat narrower scale, as I would think that most people, myself included, kind of roll everything together when giving a rating. I think 5 might be too narrow, but I like 20. But the 100 point system is no problem either. I would also limit the number of things you give points for in a breakdown system. The four you used as an example would pretty much cover it.

[herfkid]

Although I'm still on training wheels when it comes to cigar reviewing (and hell, even picking out flavors), I've got mounds of experience judging and tasting beer. In that case, strict judging works on a 50-point scale with pre-set breakdowns for aroma, mouthfeel, flavor, etc., as well as a catchall category.

The beer site I mess around a lot on uses a 5-point system for beer reviews, which gets translated into a 100-point number for general purposes (the overall numerical rating, that is, gets translated into the 100-point number).

Any way that translates a comfortable scoring/reviewing system into the most-common 100-point score is probably good, IMO.

-Andy

[josie67]

Thanks for showing some interest in my scoring system; I have been using it for over 10 years now. Let me share my reasoning with regards to the breakdown. With burn, I gave it only 3 points max because this can prety much be fixed with a touch up here and there, and I have found that for the MOST part, the burn hasn't affected the flavor of the cigar much, which to me is the most important aspect of smoking. I only gave 2 points to construction because over the last few years the cigar quality has become fantastic, so it usually seems not to be much of an issue. This leads me to the draw. I gave the draw 20 points because, let's face it, if you can't get a sufficient amount of smoke in your mouth (or get TOO much that the cigar smokes too hot), then it doesn' t matter how good the flavor profile could be. I actually debated giving a higher weight to the draw, but I decided to stay with 20 points. Then of course the last 75 points goes to actual flavor because that is the reason we all smoke these guys in the first place. I have some calculations I use actually to help me determine the final 75 points in flavor If it is a cigar I would purchase again I assign it 68-75 points, if it is merely good, it gets 60-67 points, and if it is no good it gets a range of between 0-59 points.

[Tampa1257]

I personally do not like any scale that uses a system that opens up such a vauge interpretation of what the cigar performed like. I have no clue what Ken judges a 89 cigar to taste like, nor one that is rated a 92. To me a much simpler method that is more universal would be a scale that rates the cigar either on a 5 level or a 6 level scale. That way, I know that the rater feels that the cigar performs in such a mannor that others can easily relate to. As an example:

A Cigar Scale IMHO that Has Meaning for everyone would be:

5 = Exceptional cigars that are or will be classics

4 = Excellent cigars that every smoker should try

3 = Very good cigars

2 = Average cigars

1 = Flawed cigars, Hardly fit for human consumption

IMHO, this type evaluation gives meaning to the rating that everyone can understand and judge if the cigar is something that they may want to try. While I might pass over any cigar that had a rating in the 80's, I would certainly try any cigar that had a rating of 3, 4, or 5. Heck, I might even try a cigar rated at a 2, but would not commit myself to a box purchase until I had sampled several sticks to make sure that I enjoyed them with that type of rating scale. Any Cigar rated with a 1, could be used to support a berrier reef for a seculed fishing hole.

Tampa

[tmos]

Sounds good to me. Maybe more time will be spent explaining the smoking experience and less doing math.

I'd update my tasting notes to score a 3 for the June tasting, but on a 100 point scale with appearance and construction meaning so much, I'd have to give it high 80's (using the CA ratings).