RE: Scoring - yet again

CellarTracker Main Site

RE: Scoring - yet again

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Cellar Talk] >> General Discussion >> RE: Scoring - yet again

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Scoring - yet again - 6/15/2008 11:16:09 PM

NiklasW

Posts: 510
Joined: 10/13/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul S
One unexpectedly useful thing that I get out of this whole exercise is that I can actually "rank" my tasting notes - this allows me to see which of the hundreds of bottles tasted in the last couple of years have given me the most pleasure. That, in itself, I think is worth the pain of thinking up a way to score in a less than arbirtary fashion.

Bingo! This has been very useful for me, figuring out what style of wine is my style. I'll be using this feature a lot in the coming years as I am still learning! So my scores are (selfishly) for me, but others can use them as they will! And most likely that's how the majority of CT users think.

(in reply to Paul S)

Post #: 31

RE: Scoring - yet again - 6/17/2008 8:19:49 AM

amm3rd

Posts: 18
Joined: 6/17/2008
Status: offline

The variation in number score is OK with me, reading the notes is alway more helpful.

The larger problem in my mind is...

If WS/WA rate a wine 91 points everyone who reviews the wine gives it 91 points, even if the wine clearly sucks! This is a problem for me..AMM

_____________________________

AMM

(in reply to pjaines)

Post #: 32

RE: Scoring - yet again - 6/18/2008 4:39:19 AM

amm3rd

Posts: 18
Joined: 6/17/2008
Status: offline

How would people feel about eliminating the highest and lowest 10% of the scores, if you have a minimum of 10 reviews. I think i would help smooth out the ratings, and might limit the people who's review seem to have other motives...AMM

_____________________________

AMM

(in reply to amm3rd)

Post #: 33

RE: Scoring - yet again - 6/18/2008 8:40:31 AM

nwinther

Posts: 357
Joined: 7/28/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul S

On another note, I know this has been brought up before, but I do think the 100 point system is rather more unwieldy than a five star (as used by Decanter) or a 20 point system (a la Jancis Robinson).

I see your point, and often catch myself thinking the same thing. However, the critique often goes on the implied accuracy in the 100 point scale. While there's a relatively large difference between four and five stars/points, the difference between 83 points and 84 is narrow and the system can seem foolish. Add to that, that it's only a 50 point scale, and even that is a stretch. In reality the Parker scale is a 15-point scale that (sort of) implies an enormous degree of certainty. Of course you should not disregard Parkers own appeal, that you don't take the score as a stand-alone, but rely more on the text.

(One could ask the question "why restrict yourself to 100 points and not 200 or 500?" Is is less possible to distinguish between 200 (150) points rather than 100 (50) points, and if so, does it matter?)

_____________________________

What I lack in size I make up for in obnoxiousness.

(in reply to Paul S)