CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score...

CellarTracker Main Site

CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score...

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 >> CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score...

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/15/2021 6:19:22 PM

fanglangzhe

Posts: 376
Status: offline

Hi, I know we've talked about this before in other threads but I would like to take another stab at it. So here is the official CT scoring guide:

Score Meaning
98-100 Extraordinary
94-97 Outstanding
90-93 Excellent
86-89 Very Good
80-85 Good
70-79 Below/Average
50-69 Avoid

In reality, I think the way most of us score is closer to this:
50-79 Avoid
80-84 Below Average
85-87 Average
88-89 Above Average/Good
90-93 Great
94-100 Outstanding to Extraordinary

There are many CT TNs which clearly describe a wine with significant flaws and yet the score is well above 80 (solidly Good or better in the official scoring guide). As Eric mentioned elsewhere (at least based on how I interpret his comment), many wines are bunched up in the high 80s when there should be wider dispersion in the entirety of the 80s.

Post #: 1

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/15/2021 6:40:02 PM

Paul852

Posts: 2656
Joined: 6/27/2018
From: Hong Kong
Status: offline

I agree, although I have been making a conscious effort to spread my scores lower and have rated wines in the 60s and 70s recently.

And I am in the process of going through all 900 of my TNs and reassessing, particularly in the 80-89 range.

< Message edited by Paul852 -- 12/16/2021 3:59:37 AM >

(in reply to fanglangzhe)

Post #: 2

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/15/2021 7:27:53 PM

DoubleD1969

Posts: 3602
Joined: 8/19/2008
From: New Jersey
Status: offline

I am no longer giving a numerical score. Lol

In hindsight, I should have not given numerical scores when I started drinking seriously. So many flaws in my personal scoring, sometimes swayed by the label, by the company, by the moment, and most of all, experience.

If I was Eric, I wouldn’t enable the numerical scores until they’ve written 1,000 tasting notes. 😀

(in reply to Paul852)

Post #: 3

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/15/2021 7:48:37 PM

KPB

Posts: 4663
Joined: 11/25/2012
From: Ithaca, New York
Status: offline

As for me, I try to use scores matching the official guide! But of course most of us are very selective and rarely drink plonk. I don’t bother to review wines that don’t reach 88 or 89 in my system…

_____________________________

Ken Birman
The Professor of Brettology

(in reply to DoubleD1969)

Post #: 4

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/15/2021 9:05:49 PM

Sourdough

Posts: 1883
Joined: 12/23/2013
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline

Actually Ken, I think it goes beyond that most of us don't drink plonk. As a hypothetical example let's assume a wine that properly across a broad number of ratings would rate 85. You taste it and it doesn't fit your palate and you judge it to be 83. So you avoid it and likely subsequent releases. It appeals to my palate so I give it 88 and I buy subsequent releases and they get favorable scores. You do not buy subsequent releases and therefore there are no lower ratings to balance my higher scores. The result is score inflation not because of overjudging but rather that the normal bell distribution that would happen in random sampling is lacking the tail of ratings by those who are less fond of thee wine

In other words I think most of us buy wines that push our buttons and therefore give them ratings above what might be an accurate universal rating. And this is exacerbated by a lack of less favorable ratings from those who find the wine less appealing.

Pure speculation but I feel I see evidence of this. And it is further exacerbated when one person inputs multiple ratings for a wine they like that has few other entries. I especially feel we see thIs effect in wines below 90 to 92 a CT score. But not enough info to state it as fact. But I still believe that we mainly buy wines we like which predispos us to give higher ratings which translates to inflated CT scores.

< Message edited by Sourdough -- 12/15/2021 9:13:19 PM >

(in reply to KPB)

Post #: 5

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/15/2021 9:24:35 PM

fingers

Posts: 8258
Joined: 8/26/2006
From: Santa Ana, CA
Status: offline

It would make sense to me if CT would only factor one score per user/per wine, using the average of a user’s multiple scores for that value. I mean, everyone can still see all their own scores anyway but what contributes to the CT avg would be a conglomerate of each users multiple scores.

(in reply to Sourdough)

Post #: 6

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 12:36:24 AM

fanglangzhe

Posts: 376
Status: offline

Sourdough, that's probably the best explanation I've read up to now on why CT scores may appear to be inflated (at least from my perspective). I still think most CTers aren't following the official scoring guide and that's another key reason. The 80-89 point range seems especially problematical.

< Message edited by fanglangzhe -- 12/16/2021 12:41:03 AM >

(in reply to Sourdough)

Post #: 7

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 5:20:27 AM

KPB

Posts: 4663
Joined: 11/25/2012
From: Ithaca, New York
Status: offline

Sourdough, I totally agree. Plus I don't post repeat notes, so if I taste a wine six times with consistent scores, I only have the single TN. I’ll post a new one after a few years or if my old TN no longer feels like it describes the wine in its more mature state, but this is rare for me. All these forms of self-censorship must create a huge distortion effect.

Perhaps Eric can assign one of that big new group of staffers and interns to develop better data-sampling and statistics policies?

_____________________________

Ken Birman
The Professor of Brettology

(in reply to fanglangzhe)

Post #: 8

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 5:37:46 AM

Sourdough

Posts: 1883
Joined: 12/23/2013
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline

Thanks, fanglangzhe! The phenomenon I describe will elevate CT scores even if tasters strive to follow the CT rules. (Or any formal tasting regimen). Just as we "pretend" that words have the same meaning to all of us or more correctly ignore that words do not conjure the same images in everyone, palates are not universal.and we each have a different experience with every wine. Roughly 5% of us do not taste black pepper. Our abilities to detect flavors and chemicals varies enormously. With hundreds or thousands of chemicals a lot and chemical combinations creating our perception of composite taste it is hardly surprising our perceptions scores vary. One specific example and I will crawl back under my rock! The average person can detect sugar at about 1% in wine. Most people seem to have thresholds between, 0.5% and about 1.5% as I recall.. Those at the extremes will have somewhat different perceptions of what a dry wine is.

I agree strongly that the 80 to 90 range is particularly challenging.

Salud!

(in reply to KPB)

Post #: 9

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 6:00:01 AM

Sourdough

Posts: 1883
Joined: 12/23/2013
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline

Thanks, Ken!

I used to post notes too often. Now I strive to only post new scores if my perception is particularly different and strive for no more than 2 or 3 scores, preferably over years. I agree with the suggestion that using one score per person has merit (say using each reviewers average). But it is not a cure all - particularly in wines with only a few ratings. I think most of us have seen notes where terribly mediocre wines are given a ridiculously high score along with a useless TN like "We got bombed". Sadly, the one score per member inflates their influence. Throwing out outliers (say scores more than 5 points from the CT average might help but I am not sure tgere is any real solution.

< Message edited by Sourdough -- 12/16/2021 6:07:20 AM >

(in reply to Sourdough)

Post #: 10

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 6:04:00 AM

CranBurgundy

Posts: 8272
Joined: 1/5/2016
From: Philly / South Joizey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fanglangzhe

Sourdough, that's probably the best explanation I've read up to now on why CT scores may appear to be inflated (at least from my perspective).

quote:

ORIGINAL: KPB

Sourdough, I totally agree.

Sourdough, it is a great explanation, and combined with other points made in this thread, sums up the issue.

Now STOP MAKING SENSE HERE, dammit! This is no place to be throwing around logic and reason. Hobby forums are only for excuses and justifications.

_____________________________

Purple Drankin' Cretin.

Vote NO on Proposition S1ct1516 "BAN the CRAN!" this Election Day.

“Let it be recorded: henceforth, December 15 shall be known as 'The Day of Dennis'.” - Prof. Ken "KPB" Birman, 12/17/23

(in reply to KPB)

Post #: 11

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 6:35:34 AM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

I think fanglangzhe, Sourdough and others make good points. Going by my own palate for left bank red Bordeaux, privately I do not rate scores below 88 as acceptable or scores below 90.5 as good, but I try to use the CT categories for posting.

(in reply to CranBurgundy)

Post #: 12

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 7:19:30 AM

DrBad

Posts: 724
Joined: 5/4/2018
Status: offline

Again, it's tastes and preferences. I don't call an 88 wine very good but my impression of it might be similar to someone who thinks it's very good and also scores it an 88. I definitely do not consider a 90 point wine excellent or great and I don't think the majority of CT scores them that way either. Looking through recent 90 point scores many of the adjectives are nice, very nice, good, very good. 90 points seems to be the transition from Good to Very Good for CT.

In 95 point notes the most common descriptor appears to be "excellent", as well as terms like "delicious", "gorgeous",
"fabulous" and "magnificent". 95 is the probably best summed up as "excellent".

I think it's almost easier to put single scores rather than a range of score. I.e.
88 Good, 92 Very Good, 95 Excellent, 97 Outstanding, 100 Perfect/Extraordinary. It's easier to then pick somewhere between the those markers for scoring.

The user bias theory is probably very accurate. I'm averse to tart wines so would score them lower than others who enjoy those wines and would score them higher than me. Young Burgundy or young Chianti fits in that category for me.

I don't like the idea of 1 score per person per wine because many people follow a wine over years when the wine changes and the score changes. That's one of the strengths of CT is to see from others notes when a wine is coming into it's drinking window. Notes help even more here but scores give a good trend. A score graphing capability over time would be a nice CT feature. CT could average a person's multiple scores into a single score input for the CT average but let them score the wine as much as they want. This would essentially do the same thing as a single score per user and not over weight the CT score to one person.

< Message edited by DrBad -- 12/16/2021 7:50:53 AM >

(in reply to rthpal)

Post #: 13

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 9:07:37 AM

fingers

Posts: 8258
Joined: 8/26/2006
From: Santa Ana, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DrBad

CT could average a person's multiple scores into a single score input for the CT average but let them score the wine as much as they want. This would essentially do the same thing as a single score per user and not over weight the CT score to one person.

That's what I proposed. It prevents any one user from dominating the scoring average with multiple entries of the same score over and over.

There is an undeniable bias amongst us humans to be positive on the matter. Witness the difference in helpful votes on equally well-written tasting notes where one scores it 93 and the other 86. The higher score will have higher helpful votes even though both notes could be equally useful.

(in reply to DrBad)

Post #: 14

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 9:27:39 AM

Blue Shorts

Posts: 2780
Joined: 2/5/2008
From: Santa Cruz
Status: offline

quote:

CT could average a person's multiple scores into a single score input for the CT average but let them score the wine as much as they want.

While that may help, it could also have unintended consequences.

Many of the wines that we score improve over time....and the scores tend to improve over time. Combining them into one score would tend to hide that.

I think that many people assign too much importance to the score.

Personally, I would prefer a much more simple scale:

Bad
Fair
Good
Excellent

We're talking about scoring food...a completely subjective endeavor. When people ask me about a particular wine, I usually respond with one of those four ratings.....and then talk about what I like and don't like about a particular wine. If I ask a person about a wine and they respond with..."it's a 92 point wine"..it means nothing to me.

A simple scale almost forces people to read the tasting notes..to discuss the attributes, which I prefer.

(in reply to DrBad)

Post #: 15

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 9:54:28 AM

hankj

Posts: 4672
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

I agree with the OP's reality scale - seems on the money, though 94 and 95 might be slightly overvalued. Maybe they are tier of their own.

Another idea about why CT scores end up where they do: I think CT scores for given wines are influenced by critic scores. Many CT scorers know the scores prominent critics have given their wines, and so they post their own scores as responses in the orbit of the critic average. Say a CT scorer doesn't like a $75 Napa Cab three prominent critics gave an average of 93.3 points. The scorer gives that wine a 91, unconsciously discounting the set point established by critics. Or if really enjoyed, then a 95. But not an 86 even if the wine really disappoints, and not a 99 even if it's transformative to the CT taster - the pros after all must know what they are doing. I certainly feel this gravity when I think a wine is outstanding but the critics have pinned it at a 94.

Haven't run data, and won't (so won't go to the mat that I'm right, rather more spit-balling), but my impression is that -- with plenty of exceptions, but nevertheless in general -- CT scores form a tallish bell curve around professional critical consensus.

Cayuse / Barron wines in general seem to me to reflect this dynamic: These wines get showered with 97, 98, 99, 100's by certain critics, and CT scores tend to reflect this. I can't prove it, but without those critics creating an elite track record I'm sure the average CT score for all of these wines would be significantly lower.

Or 2008 Lagier Meridith Syrah. There is something fundamentally wrong with the wine in that vintage, bench blending gaffe for sure, wildly out of line with the surrounding vintages. But the CT scores are high because of the gravity of track record established by professional critics.

And another reason CT scores are high: people want to like their cellared wines. There's financial investment and personal pride at stake. If you love the expensive wines you bought and cellared, you are a wise person with fine taste. If you don't like them you are a sucker whose bad palate led to bad choices. As such I think there's a bias toward smelling and tasting the Emperor's new juice, and this increases as wines get older and so more bottles run aground more and more emergent flaws.

< Message edited by hankj -- 12/16/2021 10:05:28 AM >

_____________________________

There are those who'd call us a bunch of sots but we don't see ourselves like that. We see ourselves as hobbyists. - Kevin Barry

(in reply to Blue Shorts)

Post #: 16

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 10:07:17 AM

Sourdough

Posts: 1883
Joined: 12/23/2013
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CranBurgundy

Now STOP MAKING SENSE HERE, dammit! This is no place to be throwing around logic and reason. Hobby forums are only for excuses and justifications.

Good point Cran. Probably better to muddle issues by using a random comment generator.

Gloopy grapes in fragile harmony bend the mind with fragments of completion!

Is that better?

(in reply to CranBurgundy)

Post #: 17

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 11:11:47 AM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

I agree with Blue Shorts that 4 categories are basically enough. I might name them differently, or even use privately 5 categories, but I could "make do" with his four categories.

< Message edited by rthpal -- 12/17/2021 2:38:56 AM >

(in reply to Blue Shorts)

Post #: 18

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 11:58:23 AM

Echinosum

Posts: 604
Joined: 1/28/2021
From: Buckinghamshire, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fanglangzhe
So here is the official CT scoring guide:

Score Meaning
98-100 Extraordinary
94-97 Outstanding
90-93 Excellent
86-89 Very Good
80-85 Good
70-79 Below/Average
50-69 Avoid

In reality, I think the way most of us score is closer to this:
50-79 Avoid
80-84 Below Average
85-87 Average
88-89 Above Average/Good
90-93 Great
94-100 Outstanding to Extraordinary

What's "average"? Average over what range?

We all know about the politicians worrying that about half of schoolstudents are doing worse than average, and promising the education system must improve so that many more are better than average.

Wine-making has got a lot better over the decades. Are these scores absolute standards, or should we expect a 90-point wine in 2021 to be a lot better than a 90-pt wine in 1990 to account for that improvement?

The Rioja regulatory council thinks like that and their official vintage ratings show that every vintage has been better than "normal" since 1984, and better than "medium" since 1972. Though I wonder which is worse, medium or normal. No vintage has ever been worse than medium or normal, and there are very few of those.

So I'm afraid I can't really distinguish your two scales, because I don't know what you think "average" is supposed to be. Or "good".

One idea might be that "average" means the quality you'd typically expect of the average priced bottle of wine sold. I believe the average price of a bottle of wine sold in Britain is about between £6.00 and £6.50. That's only 20%-30% more than the cost of a basic bottles of wine at about £5, or perhaps a notch less, remembering that there's about £2.25 duty on wine. So if a typical bottle of £6.50 wine is the standard of an "average" wine, that's pretty horrible by my estimation. If that's the original CT 80-point wine, then I go nowhere near there and know very little about how to score wines in the vicinity of 80 points.

I'd give an 85 to the standard I'd expect of a typical supermarket wine at about twice the basic price, or about £10,00. But £10 like you'd get from Chile or New Zealand or Portugal or Spain, not £10.00 like you'd get from France or some posh growing area, which can be pretty horrible still.

Then for 90, I expect a complete wine. It is has a full and complex nose. It is balanced. It is reasonably concentrated. The palate is interesting, and lacks any hollow or weak spots. It has length. This is what I deduce of the kind of wine people give 90 to. In Bordeaux, it is a standard only the best Cru Bourgeois reach (and sometimes exceed) in good vintages. That would be a nice bottle, and a lot of my everyday drinking falls a little short of that. But not very much short, and so I rarely get much lower than about 87 in my marking.

I don't necessarily find what I am doing different from the orginal CT idea. So it all depends what you think is "average" or "good". It also depends whether "average" is an absolute or relative standard over the years.

(in reply to fanglangzhe)

Post #: 19

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 2:04:32 PM

jmcmchi

Posts: 3225
Joined: 8/6/2013
Status: offline

What's "average"? Average over what range?

As far as I can tell, "average" in wine has nothing to do with a statistical value; it's a polite way of saying "so-so" or "meh"

(in reply to Echinosum)

Post #: 20

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 3:12:27 PM

DoubleD1969

Posts: 3602
Joined: 8/19/2008
From: New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmcmchi

What's "average"? Average over what range?

As far as I can tell, "average" in wine has nothing to do with a statistical value; it's a polite way of saying "so-so" or "meh"

ding ding ding ding winner winner chicken dinner

and giving a 90 score is also a polite way of saying it is only good

or when drinking the label versus the wine, people will give it a 90+ rating even though it is a purple mess or corked or shut down

(in reply to jmcmchi)

Post #: 21

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/16/2021 5:11:58 PM

grizzlymarmot

Posts: 342
Status: offline

CT has given users the directions to score and users take it to where they want. As many are aware, when there is a survey that asks you for a rank of 1-10 for something, often the only score that counts is a 10. If what ever is ranked gets a nine, it is the same as a 1. A 10 is the only rank that has any statistical power to differentiate. This is called 'top box score' (sometime 9 & 10 count for a top two box score.) I think that the analysis of scores in CT proves that. A CT score in 80-90 range is pretty useless. I think that CT scores in aggregate will only be able to generate 2 or possibly 3 categories. It still may be able to identify outstanding wines (and ones that do not meet expectations.)

(in reply to DoubleD1969)

Post #: 22

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/17/2021 1:51:21 AM

Echinosum

Posts: 604
Joined: 1/28/2021
From: Buckinghamshire, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmcmchi
What's "average"? Average over what range?

As far as I can tell, "average" in wine has nothing to do with a statistical value; it's a polite way of saying "so-so" or "meh"

And clearly people do use the word "average" in this pejorative way, rather than as a statistical term, as I hope I indicated. Though when they do so, it reduces rather than increases the precision of its meaning.

So translating it to mean "so-so" or "meh" doesn't get us any further. These remain exceedingly vague terms that depend upon one's own reference base. If they are to have any kind of standardisable meaning translatable from one person to another, we need some kind of a "standard bottle" or range of wines that stands as a reference for so-so or meh, or average if you please. If you mainly drink £10 wine, your so-so can be quite different from someone who mainly drinks £20 wine, etc.

And then we probably need a second standard at a higher score, at least, to establish what a point is worth. In fact, probably several.

That's why I translated it into "what you'd typically expect for a wine of a particular price", which would enable some kind of an absolute standard, at least for a given period of time. At lower prices, I think this is reasonably fair enough, so long as you stay away from wine which has a material prestige value, which there isn't so much of at lower price values. But as you go up the price scale, the range of available wine gets increasingly infected with the problem of prestige value.

(in reply to jmcmchi)

Post #: 23

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/23/2021 3:36:22 PM

grafstrb

Posts: 8837
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: LAla land
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fanglangzhe

Hi, I know we've talked about this before in other threads but I would like to take another stab at it. So here is the official CT scoring guide:

Score Meaning
98-100 Extraordinary
94-97 Outstanding
90-93 Excellent
86-89 Very Good
80-85 Good
70-79 Below/Average
50-69 Avoid

In reality, I think the way most of us score is closer to this:
50-79 Avoid
80-84 Below Average
85-87 Average
88-89 Above Average/Good
90-93 Great
94-100 Outstanding to Extraordinary

There are many CT TNs which clearly describe a wine with significant flaws and yet the score is well above 80 (solidly Good or better in the official scoring guide). As Eric mentioned elsewhere (at least based on how I interpret his comment), many wines are bunched up in the high 80s when there should be wider dispersion in the entirety of the 80s.

I try very hard to follow the CT scoring guide --- not because it's the CT scoring guide, but rather because I feel it's a good rubric. I've had folks bristle at my term "low-level excellent," which I will use for wines I score 90 or 91 (and probably the occasional 92, too), but that's actually an accurate term. "Excellent" and "Outstanding" are synonyms in my book, so that difference doesn't resonate with me. In the end, the best one can do with scoring wines is to be consistent in one's approach to tasting/evaluating/scoring. And Honest; be honest. No honesty = No credibility = worthless TN.

It does bear noting: most CT users are fairly knowledgeable about wine and their own palate preferences; as a result, one should expect to see the average CT score be above "average," in general. If that were *not* the case that would mean folks knowledgeable about wine are no better at picking wines for themselves than are non-knowledgeable folks at picking wines for themselves. I can comfortably say I am far better at buying wine now than I was when I got into the hobby 15+ years ago.

< Message edited by grafstrb -- 12/23/2021 3:38:38 PM >

_____________________________

Terroir is not a flavor.

(in reply to fanglangzhe)

Post #: 24

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/23/2021 5:25:09 PM

Brej

Posts: 46
Joined: 12/25/2012
From: Sandy Eggo, CA :-)
Status: offline

As a huge rookie compared to many in this thread, I will say that I value what is written in TNs. I have seen scores on CT that are wildly above or below the majority of scores for a particular wine and the scorer leaves no TN to support their score. I ignore those TNs. But I will confess to having padded my scores on a at least one wine that I liked in an attempt to provide balance for what I feel is an unrealistically low score.

One of the many things I appreciate about CT is a discussion such as this that provides so much information and perspective to consider. I hope it helps make me a more appreciative enjoyer of good wine!

(in reply to grafstrb)

Post #: 25

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/23/2021 5:37:37 PM

Sourdough

Posts: 1883
Joined: 12/23/2013
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline

Well said grafstrb!

< Message edited by Sourdough -- 12/23/2021 5:38:09 PM >

(in reply to Brej)

Post #: 26

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/23/2021 5:51:07 PM

fanglangzhe

Posts: 376
Status: offline

I appreciate how many CTers try to follow the CT scoring guide. Perhaps the biggest problem is with 80-85 being called "Good". Perhaps I just don't understand what "good" means in the English language. But when I see a score in that range, it almost certainly does not mean "good" in the way I understand that word. As I posted in another thread, "good" should not mean the same as "OK", "so-so", "average", "meh". It should convey something that is better than all of those words.

(in reply to grafstrb)

Post #: 27

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/23/2021 5:52:44 PM

DrBad

Posts: 724
Joined: 5/4/2018
Status: offline

If I were required to score the CT way I would find another wine tracking system, there are plenty out there.

I came to Cellartracker looking for a better way to track my wines and score my wines and I am paying yearly for that service based on the number of wines in my cellar. I had begun writing my own database inventory system when I stumbled on CT and figured this is much easier. There is NO requirement on the scoring system for the cellartracker wine tracking and scoring system. There is the mentioned thread on CT scoring method but this IS NOT in the terms of service. My scoring is not disruptive and is actually in line with the majority of scorers for the wines I score. I would be more than happy for the capability to remove my scores from the overall CT average or for CT to be able to do that automatically.

I generally don't pay a lot of attention to CT scores except for people I've come to know who have similar tastes and scoring as myself. The notes are probably more important to me than the scores. I rely more on professional reviewer scores for decisions on buying wine, CT for how a wine is drinking.

(in reply to Sourdough)

Post #: 28

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/23/2021 5:57:58 PM

Eduardo787

Posts: 1569
Joined: 1/14/2020
From: Monterrey Mexico
Status: offline

ALthough I love to score wines I drink, I think I do a very mediocre job mainly because my palate is not that precise and frankly I have no idea what makes a wine a 92 pointer and another one a 93. Or a 87 point to a 89. I was just thinking what would happen to my scores if I would do a very simple 0-5 scale where 0 is a total disaster and 5 the greatest wine ever. It would be for me MUCH more helpful because those 3-4 stars would make all the difference in the world whereas right now a 90 or a 92 pont wine makes so little difference. A 3 star would mean ordinary, can repeat, maybe good qpr, everyday wine, pleaser, etc and a 4 star wine would mean something quite good and something that I definitelly want to buy over and over, whereas a 90 pt right now does not mean that for me.

Again, I wish my palate was more trained or at least I could get the very little things, but in reality I still enjoy the wine in a simpler and much more relaxed wine. It´s like when you see a beautiful house and you are not an architect or a designer and you miss many things that they don´t...that´s me.

_____________________________

I can´t be happier than drinkling wine with my friends

(in reply to fanglangzhe)

Post #: 29

RE: CT scoring guide vs the reality of how we score... - 12/23/2021 6:22:17 PM

fanglangzhe

Posts: 376
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Eduardo787
ALthough I love to score wines I drink, I think I do a very mediocre job mainly because my palate is not that precise and frankly I have no idea what makes a wine a 92 pointer and another one a 93. Or a 87 point to a 89. I was just thinking what would happen to my scores if I would do a very simple 0-5 scale where 0 is a total disaster and 5 the greatest wine ever. It would be for me MUCH more helpful because those 3-4 stars would make all the difference in the world whereas right now a 90 or a 92 pont wine makes so little difference. A 3 star would mean ordinary, can repeat, maybe good qpr, everyday wine, pleaser, etc and a 4 star wine would mean something quite good and something that I definitelly want to buy over and over, whereas a 90 pt right now does not mean that for me.

I totally agree with you and consider myself to have a fairly sensitive palate developed over 3 decades of drinking and learning about wine. But I think the 100pt system is basically a joke and assumes too much precision which doesn't exist. Whether a wine is a 92 or 93 is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Any difference between 50 and 69 (or possibly 79) is also meaningless since all such wines should be avoided. I don't think anyone will say "Oh, I gave wine A 51points and wine B 65 points, let's go buy cases of wine B since it is so much better". I also believe a 5 star/point system would be much simpler and more reflective of reality (for at least most of us).

< Message edited by fanglangzhe -- 12/23/2021 6:30:23 PM >

(in reply to Eduardo787)

Post #: 30