Personal Rating system

Before taking rating "seriously" I simply gave marks out of ten for my own personal records. I quickly outgrew this system as it did not provide any room for nuanced scoring and it was hard to match my tasting notes to the final score. I needed a better system. I found the 100 point system (as a general class of scoring systems, since within 100 points, there are a few ways this can be done).

Connosr introduced the 4 x 25 system for the (de-facto) standard categories of Nose, Taste (or Palette), Finish and Balance last year. This is the system employed by Jim Murray, for example.

Others rate out of 100 without enforcing any break-down into categories (almost like a "marks out of ten" system but expanded to 100 points to provide more fine-grained ratings to separate whiskies that are closely ranked), and Connosr also allows this "simple" scoring system to be applied to reviews.

Personally I subscribe to the 4 x 25 system because I can see how the points were allocated across nose, taste, finish etc and I find it easier to compare across whiskies.

One of the pitfalls of the 100 point system is that it is fundamentally counter-intuitive. A pass mark is not 50/100. It is more like 70 or 75 out of 100, since there is not a "normal distribution" (bell curve) of whisky quality across the 0-100 spectrum (it is HEAVILY biased towards the upper end, i.e. it is hard to find a truly horrible whisky especially when you're talking about single malts).

For me, and others out there, the cut-offs for this system are: 95+ superstar 90+ excellent 85+ great 80+ very good 75+ good 70+ average (but not un-enjoyable) 65+ below average (but would not turn down a free one) 60+ do I really have to drink this? .. and it gets worse from there.

I think I have only come across one malt in my travels so far that rates in the 60's and none lower.

If I had rated a very cheap blended Scotch it might end up in the 50's or lower - I haven't tried.

I score out of 25 for each of the 4 components to arrive at my x/100 scores. I don't give half-marks (unlike Jim Murray) and anyway, Connosr doesn't allow them. I rarely tweak my scores afterwards unless I see that I've been unfairly harsh or generous with my scores when compared against similar styles of whisky.

As a sanity test, I always assess the final score against the "cut-offs" above and generally I can see whether I've under or over-scored a whisky - and this is where subjectivity comes in sometimes.

Furthermore, I now employ a system where I rate my whiskies across 2 or 3 samplings. First rating is on first or second day of bottle opening, then a week later, then 4 weeks later. These timings aren't strict but that's the gist of it anyway. I also taste with water and allocate a "with water" 4 x 25 score. For lower ABV whiskies I don't count the "with water" score - the whisky ought to be rated as bottled at that lower strength. Cask strength is a different matter, if/when I rate a cask strength whisky I will probably average my scores there. Also, my final score is averaged across the two or three tastings. Phew.

That's why I only have 2 reviews up so far - and I wasn't even following my "latest" system in those! I have a bunch of "work in progress" reviews, however! Coming soon to Connosr!

And to all that think this is all a little much.. yeah you're probably right. I do take time to enjoy my whiskies though, believe me. Rating is just an exercise to better train my senses and to provide mementos along my whisky journey. If I wasn't having fun rating, I wouldn't do it!

I use a different system than most. It is a five point scale goes as follows; 1 = Wouldn't drink this whisky even if free. 2 = Wouldn't buy this whisky, but would drink it if it were free. 3 = Would buy if there's nothing better on the menu. 4 = Will buy a bottle. 5 = Always have a bottle on the shelf.

We, the girlfriend and I, came up with this after looking at a lot of reviews on the 100 point scale and realizing we didn't see any below 60. We figured why bother with a scale that large if you're not going to use it all? Our scale does allow for non-whole numbers (3.5, 2.9, etc.).

Granted our system needs a little work as the benchmark for 4 doesn't quite fit, as we have bought whiskies that score in the mid to high threes.

@Mantisking, yes, the primary rating system style used on Connosr is both totally a matter of convention, and highly arbitrary. I don't like it much myself, but it is a language, adopted by social convention. I changed a lot of my original ratings to fit into this particular 'group-think'. There is at least one review whose score I would not change to above 60, however.

I like your "Is it worth paying money for?" sort of a system. Doesn't tell anybody what it tastes or smells like, but it certainly tells where you stand on it.

A point system I have developed and may start to use publicly at some point I call SQVH: 100 pts total, with separate 25 point evaluation categories for Strength, Quality, Variety, and Harmony of the flavours. Additional comments can be made, if desired, about the body/mouthfeel. Nose, finish, and balance comments can be included within the SQVH categories. If one wanted to, one could curve this system to conform to contemporary conventional '60 to 90' bell curve ratings...or one could do it on an individual basis, resulting, no doubt, with a bigger spread of scores, and a lower point curve of the average point scores.

@Victor -- The only thing any number system is going to do is tell how much a reviewer liked a particular whisky. It falls to the tasting notes to tell what tastes and smells the whisky may have.

Right now it's something that's working for us. I may try to do some ratings using the Connosr system at some point in the future though. If only to do some reviews and participate a little more around here.

@Mantisking, yes, words for useful description, numbers to define individual preferences.