Judge's tasting notes
- Thread starter ChaosCatalunya
- Start date
well i ain't entering this year, don't really have anything worthy available in sufficient amounts. but i wanna do some judging and i just hope there are as many entries as possible 
be a shame to lose peoples entries just because they want to judge. but i do understand what you are saying, specially when it come to seed co's categories. but in the end this will be up to the organizers.
be a shame to lose peoples entries just because they want to judge. but i do understand what you are saying, specially when it come to seed co's categories. but in the end this will be up to the organizers.
There is no official form here at IcMag for a smoke report. I did have a sticky up for a long time stating that.
Those forms came from people that frequented another site. And I will not tell people not to use it if they so please. But please be informed that there no official format to writing a smoke report here. Thanks!
Am I the only person who thinks the multiple choice/numbers in boxes version looks awful and is not easy to follow?
Thanks all,
I did see there is no rigid Smoke Report format and agree with Jamie that the TY one is a bit too much.... Which brings me back to my original point... if you were making one up, what would you add [or remove] from the unofficial IC format in the first links I posted ?
The Judges scoring form does not have a whole lot of spare room for notes and other info, that is why I was thinking of making something else up.
Re Judges entering, all issues could be fixed if they entered an average score, easy to do if it is all totted up on a laptop.
it's not really for me to say (I'm not a judge nor can I afford to be this year) but I think the following is pretty much how I'd have it... and is pretty much how they come in those you linked)
Bag Appeal - marks out of 10 and blank field for keyword notes (example: "nice trim/very orange")
Aroma - marks out of 10 and blank field for keyword notes (example: "urine/minty")
Flavour - marks out of 10 and blank field for keyword notes (example: "chocolate/old school")
Effects - marks out of 10 and blank field for keyword notes (example: "fast hitting/body stone")
Overall - marks out of 10 and larger blank field for description (example: "overall great old school skunk flavours and hit with some hints of chocolate").
then I would collate it all at the end and use multiple instances of keywords to form full descriptions after all the marking was done using the same format as above and using the most popular adjectives... then all entrants would get some nice feed back in a simple form
but hey, that's just me
edit - all judges who're entering should remove their own sample and hand it to either OP or myself for judging (teehee)
Bag Appeal - marks out of 10 and blank field for keyword notes (example: "nice trim/very orange")
Aroma - marks out of 10 and blank field for keyword notes (example: "urine/minty")
Flavour - marks out of 10 and blank field for keyword notes (example: "chocolate/old school")
Effects - marks out of 10 and blank field for keyword notes (example: "fast hitting/body stone")
Overall - marks out of 10 and larger blank field for description (example: "overall great old school skunk flavours and hit with some hints of chocolate").
then I would collate it all at the end and use multiple instances of keywords to form full descriptions after all the marking was done using the same format as above and using the most popular adjectives... then all entrants would get some nice feed back in a simple form
but hey, that's just me
edit - all judges who're entering should remove their own sample and hand it to either OP or myself for judging
(teehee)
C
Chamba
bag appeal is so low on my criteria for judging strains, that it doesn't even matter.
let's face it, bag appeal doesn't get you high, nor does smell, taste, aroma, color, price or anything else apart from smoking it.
I think that 100% of the score should be based purely on the quality and strength of the high.....the rest really is irrelevant unless you are a cash cropper who places way more importance on bag appeal, how easy a strain is to manicure, how fast it finishes etc rather than the quality of the high...
but, hey, that's just me
let's face it, bag appeal doesn't get you high, nor does smell, taste, aroma, color, price or anything else apart from smoking it.
I think that 100% of the score should be based purely on the quality and strength of the high.....the rest really is irrelevant unless you are a cash cropper who places way more importance on bag appeal, how easy a strain is to manicure, how fast it finishes etc rather than the quality of the high...
but, hey, that's just me
IWanaGetHiSoHi
Active member
I'm with K Genetics on this. I don't know if I want to enter a contest that had a Judge who Lied Terribly (their words) and had Weed entered in said contest (as Herb ditches plans to enter some weed). Entrants shouldn't be judging at all IMHO.
I also notice though that a lot of growers hardly bother to trim their buds... something that gripes with me as the notion that "its all got THC on" is a bit lame..the appearance to me is important as I can tell if you trimmed it properly then it wont taste like WOOD...lol
people who trim sugar leaf but don't "shuck" the leaves complete with stem should be shot on sight..(not really)
but hey...
Last edited:
Ok I think you might need to go back and re read the original post... when he says he "lied terribly" he reffers to the fact that he had to lie when other judges asked him about his own entry.. NOT that he lied on the actual scoring!
Last edited:
really man how can anyone misunderstand the meaning of someones words like that unless they don't bother to really read. he had to "lie" when judging and asked about his weed, because he was being humble about his own. so even though his strain was surely fantastic as that's why he selected it to enter in the first place, he didn't want to cheat and tell those that asked him what he thought about sample no xxxx (Karma's sample), that he thought it was awesome, even if that's what he thought. as that would have been cheating by influencing other judges to vote well for your entry, which is clearly forbidden. you understand now?
Ok I think you might need to go back and re read the original post... when he says he "lied terribly" he reffers to the fact that he had to lie when other judges asked him about his own entry.. NOT that he lied on the actual scoring!
Thanks guys, that was exactly what I meant, several people asked me what I thought of bud that was my own entry, so I just gave very ambivalent answers, but at one stage someone did ask me specifically if it was mine and I had to lie "through my teeth" and say no. I have since apologised and explained and he is totally cool with it. That is just how I thought I should do it, as fairly and as honestly as possible.
Gotta agree!
If you enter a category....you should not judge within that same category....period.
There are always plenty of folks with samples willing to share their goodies....if an entrant wants to toke on some of the other entries
then that can easily be accomplished without the privileges of a ballot.
i dont think im going to have a sample finished this year unfortunatly
but if i did i def would want to judge either way
i hear the unfair thingy
but liked the idea someone mentioned in this thread
we have a guy(old pink gypsy or even one of our crew like jamie shoes if hes not entering)judge all the judges samples who are entering and that way we all get a fair go and there can be no favouritism to his/her own entry
that way we dont lost any entrys of people wanting to judge
because lets be honest we need all the entrys we can get(i want a fat bag of samples lol)
see you all soon
peace
but if i did i def would want to judge either way
i hear the unfair thingy
but liked the idea someone mentioned in this thread
we have a guy(old pink gypsy or even one of our crew like jamie shoes if hes not entering)judge all the judges samples who are entering and that way we all get a fair go and there can be no favouritism to his/her own entry
that way we dont lost any entrys of people wanting to judge
because lets be honest we need all the entrys we can get(i want a fat bag of samples lol)
see you all soon
peace
Very nice of you to include me ...even though, really I was joking, it might be useful for someone "independant" to judge the samples of entering judges...
Alas, I can't really volunteer as I also plan on entering
Alas, I can't really volunteer as I also plan on entering
B
British_Bulldog
If there's still any doubt and suspicion of unfairness, I could judge the judges samples
Peace
Peace
The cup is for entrants to enter.....and independent (not entrants) to judge.
Anyone who bases their decision on whether to enter or not solely on whether they can judge their own is in it for the wrong reasons.
Here's a scenario....hypothetical of course
You enter the sativa category......you purchase 6 sativa judge passes...one for yourself and 5 for your buddies. You identify/pick out your entry, make note of the blind entry code from the label of the sample....inform your 5 friends....you all vote for you entry....6 high votes can swing the results. Of course this can always be done in a few different ways....even excluding yourself from judging equation here....this is why it has 'always' been...and I am most confident that it will continue to be that ANY entrant observed by cup staff to be 'touting' their entry will be disqualified. Btw.....it's happened before....and disqualifications have occurred as a result.
Ever since 2003.........this cup has taken great pride in keeping the judging FAIR and impartial...assigning a blind number to each and every entry. The whole basis of the cup is to enter...and have 'independent' judges vote....not to enter and then judge your own or go around talking your entry up to attending judges.
This doesn't seem to be quite a problem in the independent grower category.......but the seed co category, where 'future' earnings from seed sales as a result of that co being able to advertise that they won or placed in the cup is a different matter....therefore warrants closer scrutiny...as it has in the past.
There's always a few bad apples that try and spoil/taint the fairness of the judging...the best way to limit that is to stipulate that no entrant can also be a judge....period. I previously posted above 'If you enter a category....you should not judge within that same category....period.' I retract that.....due to how easy it would be for an entrant to enter a sativa, purchase a hash or indi pass (different category), and merely swap out the hash package with a friend who purchased a sat pass (the one the entrants entry is in).
Because it is a socializing event....and entrants who also attend can not possibly be expected to not partake in the social scene....touting one's own entry, or disclosing the variety name of what they entered, has 'always' been grounds for disqualification.
I'm sure we'd all like to think that no one would do such things....but in the fairness of the cup, it's within the realm of possibility that someone would....therefore all possible has to be done to prevent that from happening.
Each entry should stand on it's own merits....and be fairly and independently judged.
DG
Anyone who bases their decision on whether to enter or not solely on whether they can judge their own is in it for the wrong reasons.
Here's a scenario....hypothetical of course
You enter the sativa category......you purchase 6 sativa judge passes...one for yourself and 5 for your buddies. You identify/pick out your entry, make note of the blind entry code from the label of the sample....inform your 5 friends....you all vote for you entry....6 high votes can swing the results. Of course this can always be done in a few different ways....even excluding yourself from judging equation here....this is why it has 'always' been...and I am most confident that it will continue to be that ANY entrant observed by cup staff to be 'touting' their entry will be disqualified. Btw.....it's happened before....and disqualifications have occurred as a result.
Ever since 2003.........this cup has taken great pride in keeping the judging FAIR and impartial...assigning a blind number to each and every entry. The whole basis of the cup is to enter...and have 'independent' judges vote....not to enter and then judge your own or go around talking your entry up to attending judges.
This doesn't seem to be quite a problem in the independent grower category.......but the seed co category, where 'future' earnings from seed sales as a result of that co being able to advertise that they won or placed in the cup is a different matter....therefore warrants closer scrutiny...as it has in the past.
There's always a few bad apples that try and spoil/taint the fairness of the judging...the best way to limit that is to stipulate that no entrant can also be a judge....period. I previously posted above 'If you enter a category....you should not judge within that same category....period.' I retract that.....due to how easy it would be for an entrant to enter a sativa, purchase a hash or indi pass (different category), and merely swap out the hash package with a friend who purchased a sat pass (the one the entrants entry is in).
Because it is a socializing event....and entrants who also attend can not possibly be expected to not partake in the social scene....touting one's own entry, or disclosing the variety name of what they entered, has 'always' been grounds for disqualification.
I'm sure we'd all like to think that no one would do such things....but in the fairness of the cup, it's within the realm of possibility that someone would....therefore all possible has to be done to prevent that from happening.
Each entry should stand on it's own merits....and be fairly and independently judged.
DG
B
British_Bulldog
Let's hope there's no bias or funny business, and as little drama as possible this year....then again...this is the Cup, lol
It is very clear everybody wants a straight competition, it is really the only one of it's type and would be a real shame if it got corrupted by any of the rumours of skulduggery that dog the HTCC. As Dutchgrown says, people can buy a few entries for friends and in the Professional entries it is all the more reason to try it on... financial rather than just ego, so there has to be some element of trust.
For this reason it is surely best for anybody who recognises an entry, be they the grower/entrant or another judge with whatever connection to them, to declare it and enter an average score, removing themselves from the totals for that entry. Adding it all up is very easy if you use a spreadsheet or database program, it also makes analysing the figures a doddle and even posting them up. That way judges who give poor scores to rivals will show up too, the fact that it will be posted up will also help stop any poor marking of rivals entries.
For this reason it is surely best for anybody who recognises an entry, be they the grower/entrant or another judge with whatever connection to them, to declare it and enter an average score, removing themselves from the totals for that entry. Adding it all up is very easy if you use a spreadsheet or database program, it also makes analysing the figures a doddle and even posting them up. That way judges who give poor scores to rivals will show up too, the fact that it will be posted up will also help stop any poor marking of rivals entries.
there we go that settles that potential problem, i feel it is a bit of a shame, but it's clear that the IC mag cup has to be beyond reproach and this can only really be guaranteed if no entrants are allowed to judge.
but like Dutchgrown said there will always be possibilities to be dishonest if one is prepared to go to any lengths. you would have to lock the judges up somewhere in individual booths, taking their phones away, or something lol.
on the other hand the organizers can keep a careful watch on things and check that people are not naming samples or trying to influence other judges.
here's hoping for a great and fair cup for all.
but like Dutchgrown said there will always be possibilities to be dishonest if one is prepared to go to any lengths. you would have to lock the judges up somewhere in individual booths, taking their phones away, or something lol.
on the other hand the organizers can keep a careful watch on things and check that people are not naming samples or trying to influence other judges.
here's hoping for a great and fair cup for all.
