A sneak peek at our new scoring system

galg wrote:

Very nice! i think the advanced scoring is very cool

as it seems i am starting scoring on my blog as well. coincidence?

yes!

jdcook wrote:

This is very cool. Looking forward to it!

UffeK wrote:

Very nice! Now it will be the same scoring system here as we are using in our whisky club. Should make my scoring a bit more consistent as well. :-)

dbk wrote:

Very interesting, and a clever way to increase consistency across raters. Another wonderful addition to Connosr!

Alanjp wrote:

I like the look of it, will be using the simple system though, and i agree that it'll promote consistent scoring across the board.

markjedi1 wrote:

Wonderful! The community has been asking for a better scoring system and again the Connosr people deliver - in style! Great stuff!

drinix wrote:

Great! This is a very good news and certainly a value added to the website.

OJK wrote:

I think the new scoring system looks fantastic, especially as it seems equally accessible to the novice, however allows for further scoring detail for the more experienced reviewer. Also the colouring/emoticon format encourages people to operate to a universally accepted interpretation of what qualifies as a 7, an 8 or a 9, in terms of levels of appreciation of a whisky. I personally however would be inclined to put the lime-green 'happy' face at 80, and the 'very happy' face at 95, operating under the assumption that above 95 is very seldom achieved. Perhaps I'm thinking about it too much though?!

WhiskyNotes wrote:

Great idea and well executed! I agree with OJK that the green smiley should be around 90 instead of 100.

Victor wrote:

The new scoring detail looks very nice. I shall use the simple scoring system, though, since scoring is a personal matter and I really do not put the same emphasis on nose that others do. 'Balance' is also really a composite set of subjective observations with which I have no problem. Balance, though as a concept would seem to me to apply more to some genres than to others. Malts are the terroir for a true sense of balance of usually several, even multiple factors. From my perspective the culture of appreciation of malt whiskies works primarily based upon an assumption of barley malt flavour being the playground on which a symphony of other flavour players perform. Some will sometimes comment that they love the malty flavour of this or that whisky, but it is relatively rare (Toshan Man aside) for malted barley flavour to be the highlight of most malt whisky reviews. By contrast, if you give me a really good rye flavour, I don't really need anything else to taste to have a wonderful time. Don't get me wrong-- I love a good malt! My point though is that this whisk(e)y world is a very big one and that flexibility of mind and flexibility of scoring system are both highly desirable. For this reason I shall use the new simple system when it becomes available. And, finally, as an aside to my buddy, jwise, I score based entirely on my enjoyment of the whisky and the attraction which that whisky has for me to return for another round. My scoring is not designed to set up a statistical mean at 50/100 as a sorter of the relative merits of various products. I do very much respect the 'sorting and separating' approach that some reviewers prefer, though.

OCeallaigh wrote:

Great system, guys!

markjedi1 wrote:

I'm also happy with the fact that an amnesty period will be introduced as my palate has evolved over the past months and I need to re-score quite a few of my early tasting notes. Thx, Connosr!

dbk wrote:

You took the words right out of my keyboard, @markjedi1. I will definitely want to re-score a few past reviews.

jwise wrote:

I'm glad you all seem to like the new system, because I sure don't. Perhaps it is just because I do not understand how it is to work, or because I've never bothered with numerical scores before.

If I taste a whisky that is pleasant to drink, but I wouldn't ever go out seeking a bottle, or even consider ordering it at a pub, but if offered a glass I would accept it. How should I score it? I think it should be "ambivalent", or "neither good nor bad", and thus the "straight mouth face." But, that would put it at a 65. Is there really a great need to give a range of 65 points of differentiation for whiskies that you wouldn't ever drink again, even if offered for free? I would much prefer to set "ambivalent" at 50, and give me 50 points to differentiate between the "good" whiskies that I would enjoy drinking. Additionally, if I think a whisky is "good" and that I like it, that would suggest it would make me smile, and thus it should be rated at an 85. That's pretty high just to finally start getting into whiskies that I like. Nearly my entire cabinet would be rated between 85-90. It would begin to look like my default score is an 87.

Lastly, I agree with the above comments about "balance". If a whisky is balanced, that is notable, but not necessarily a factor for its score. Johnnie Walker Blue is probably the MOST balanced whisky I have ever tasted, but it is not my favorite. Why should it get higher points than one I like better? That's like grading the color of a whisky. I happen to like dark colored whiskies, because it makes me think the whisky has been in 100% ex-sherry casks for 20 years. But there's nothing wrong with a light colored whisky, especially since it could taste a LOT better than some young whisky that the distillery poured a bunch of caramel coloring dye into to make it darker. Just as the color of a whisky is interesting to describe, so is the balance. However, just as it would be meaningless to score the color, I think it is just as meaningless to score the balance.

To me it is just part of the taste. If the unbalanced-ness of a whisky makes it taste worse, then it is the taste you are scoring, not the balance.

Alright - I'm done.

Hogshead wrote:

@jwise I think what Connosr are trying to do is bring the scores in line with professional scoring systems and the ones you will find in most publications. On that system 65/100 is pretty bad whisky. Anything below 60 is undrinkable.

The same system is used for most wine scoring and other spirits in professional competitions.

I guess what this means is that scores on Connosr can then be compared with scores from other sources.

From the user point of view you can think of 60 as 0/10 and 99 as 10/10.

Converting the scores out of 10 scores could work if you multiply your score by 4 and add 60. So it probably looks something like this:

• 0/10 = 60/100
• 1/10 = 64/100
• 2/10 = 68/100
• 3/10 = 72/100
• 4/10 = 76/100
• 5/10 = 80/100
• 6/10 = 84/100
• 7/10 = 88/100
• 8/10 = 92/100
• 9/10 = 96/100
• 10/10 = 99/100 you never really get to 100/100 without the universe exploding or something

jwise wrote:

Like I said, I have no experience with professional scoring, so this really helps! Thanks, Hogshead! I understand the desire to bring the Connosr scoring in line with other scoring. Your algorithm will help me translate my stars into appropriate scores.

Connosr wrote:

Thanks everyone for the feedback - all taken on board.

@hogshead - we've updated the formatting on your list to make it a bit easier to read. For the record, you're not far off the mark with that scale.

WhiskyNotes wrote:

@jwise I think we're all influenced by pioneers like Serge Valentin who are scoring for a zillion years and whose ratings have become like a benchmark. As for the 65/100 problem: it all depends what you want to score. If it's only single malt whisky, then yes, having 65/100 as the lowest mark may seem strange, but if you think about scoring rhum, tequila or wodka as well with the same scale, you'll surely need the 30's or 40's range as well.

It's all a matter of tradition. It doesn't make sense to try and fix flaws by inventing a new scale over and over, so using a well-known system like Serge's makes sense to me.

Connosr wrote:

@WhiskyNotes quite rightly references Serge Valentin, who has been doing this for a while :)

Here is a chart showing his scoring distribution for 6000 reviews on WhiskyFun: http://www.whiskyfun.com/Material25/Scores.jpg

Full details of the final implementation can be found here by the way: http://bit.ly/foGFS4