Moving Along: WB Rating System Part II

WINE TALK
1

Results are in.
38 votes for ‘100’
32 votes for ‘5’
27 votes for ‘20’

Since I don’t think anyone is interested in reinventing the 100 point system (if I’m wrong, someone else can take that ball), the winner by default is ‘5’. Try not to get too excited.

The next part of this little excercise is to come up with definitions/meanings for each of the 5 tiers then we’ll decide our scoring format (numbers, letters, stars, icons, etc.)

I know there are at least 32 of you out there that can help out with this, so let’s hear some ideas and comments about what people do/don’t like!

Upon further review, the ruling on the field has been reversed. See post #23 below. We’re moving on to Round 2 of voting.

2

Well, not to piss on your parade but you don’t have anything like a consensus. You just threw out the the highest vote total and took a slim winner of what was left. I think you need more directed discussion before you pick a number.

3

You’re right Chris. Although I wasn’t expecting a consensus, the results don’t set an obvious direction to take this thing.

A). Declare 100 the winner and drop the whole thing?
B). Have another poll with 2 or 3 options (5, 20, 100) to determine the winner?
C). Continue beating this topic to death through ongoing debate?
D). Forge ahead like I attempted to do?

Seriously, I’m open to suggestions.

4

Seriously,
I’d start a poll asking people if they would use the New WB Rating System. Two options: Yes; No. Maybe it’s just me, but I think all your work might be for nothing (i.e.: people like talking, but not doing).

5

I can find several conclusions from your original quest. Firstly is that many people are happy still with the 100 point system. There might be several reasons for that. Comfort is probably more important than most would admit. It is what most have seen and used in their years in wine and change is rarely palatable.

There are also a large contingent of people dissatisfied with that 100 point system for many reasons we have seen in various threads. They cannot agree on what is best or even if we should have a grading system. There is some history of the 20 point system in academic arenas. We have also seen letter grades or stars in other areas besides wine such as movies. So some people will like those for their own reasons of comfort.

I’m not sure you can get any momentum on a new system until you convince a larger number of 100 pt fans that a new system is a good idea.

Another thing I have noticed in these discussions is the endless picking apart of systems and whether they represent actually 15 points because you might use + or - and other such details. That amounts to pedantic hair splitting to me as the issue is how systems are used and how we can steer people to use them better rather than gnashing at the teeth of how many points they represent.

6

Can we get a ruling from Rick Gregory before we plod ahead?

7

B, please. Another poll. However, I still think that A+, A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+ etc is the best option. It gets away from numbers and it splits the difference between 5 and 20 to some extent. So, if the poll could have 3 options.

8
  1. You’ll never get consensus at the start.
  2. I think the OP and options weren’t clear and I’m not sure that people really understood what they were voting on.
  3. Some people obviously voted for 5 but then want to use + and - if it’s 5 letter grades. As you later pointed out this isn’t 5 but some higher number.

I’d talk to Eric and see if he can and will deploy a new scoring system in CT. That would drive adoption. I’d also do another two polls - one like Brian suggests as to whether people will use a new system, the other with the top 3-4 options. Make it VERY clear that a letter grade system with + and - options isn’t a 5 step system, so have choices for letter grades without + and - and with.

9

I’m for “A”. And regardless of where this winds up, there will be too much “C” going on, as it is the reality of internet discussion groups.

10

I think there is plenty of evidence that some people are dissatisfied with the 100-point scale, as evidenced by the responses to your poll, Tyler. You should focus your efforts on designing a system that satisfies the dissenters and ignore the people encouraging you not to challenge the status quo.

Personally, I like the A, B, C, D, F with optional pluses, no minuses needed.

11

^ This.

12

A through F with plusses and minuses is a 15 point scale. And we have pretty close to a 15 point scale at the moment for premium/serious wines (85-100). So how much of a change is that?

Here’s how. I assume most of us on here were good students back in school and view A to B or B+ as “good” scores, while we probably view C through F as very bad scores. So, people would probably have a very good $45 Brunello or California pinot and give it an A or an A-, but would never have given that wine a 99 or 98 on the 100 point scale. If someone gave a wine a C-, that would probably mean they thought it was poor, but that would correspond to a 91 on the 85-100 scale.

So, I think you’d have a 15 point scale either way, like we effectively have now, but instead of the scores clustering around the 90 point mark, you’d have scores clustering around the 97-98 point mark.

Do you prefer having more room to make fine distinctions towards the top end, or towards the bottom end, of the scale? I guess I like the 85-100 point scale, because I’d rather be able to say “I like the Alesia Sonoma Coast and give it 91 points, but I was floored by how great the Rhys Alpine Vineyard was and give it 97 points.” Rather than have all the play be at the C-F range: “The Alto Moncayo was pretty awful, I give it a C-, but the Woodbridge merlot at the wedding reception was horrid, I give that an F+.”

But, whatever your preference, that seems to be the difference between the A-F system and the 85-100 point system – one encourages fine distinctions among the good, very good, and great wines, the other seems to lump those more closely together and leave most of its range to distinguish between the bad, very bad and truly horrid wines.

13

And that’s precisely why I would not allow a + - system with letter grades. I could nitpick that no one ever gave people F+ or F- so it’s really a 13 point scale, but you’re correct I think in how such a system would be used. The problem is that people are scared to make calls so they fudge. Instead of saying “Is it an A or a B?” they play around the edges… “well, maybe a B+… or actually, perhaps A-”. The fact is that we vary enough that the difference between B+ and A- is going to be swamped by the variations in our palates, the bottles, etc. Hell, look at Jeb’s Patty Green thread - we can’t even figure out what aroma he’s getting… how is the distinction between A- and B+ (or 93 and 96) supposed to be accurately and consistently conveyed??

A 4 or 5 step scale forces people to be a bit more brutal… “No, this really isn’t an A. It’s a solid B, but I can’t give it an A.” And that’s FINE.

14

I appreciate the gesture, I’m just not sure about the payoff. The 100 point system is understood and entrenched. For better or worse.

There may be more satisfying crusades to be waged than this one.

15

Like how Cali wine sucks and the One True Wine is Burgundy? [berserker.gif]

16

THAT got a genuine chuckle out of me!

17

These are the sorts of things that veer the discussion off the point of perception of points and keep us nitpicking over the numbers of points. Its a forest for the trees argument. If you insist on saying ‘its the same as 15pts’ then you might as well use the 100 point scale as it exists. If you want to have people look at evaluating wine differently and using some sort of metric for it the letter grades are a place to at least consider looking. The + or - are not important to that. Use them or don’t but when someone is thinking about an A versus a B that is fundamentally a bigger decision than deciding 90 versus 91. That should be the point of looking at other scales. Trying to get people to give more useful information that isn’t skewed by so called authorities and rampant abuse by users. If all anyone wants to do is drag it back to the 100 point scale by claiming its really a 15 point scale then you are still living in that paradigm.

18

If I understand correctly, I agree with Cris.

The problem with the 100 point system is not that most people only use 15 of the units. From my POV, the problem is that there is not uniform meaning of the standards from person to person.

I am looking at what sounds like a pretty good Oregon Pinot. It is rated from 80-88 on CT. Apparently, for this person, 80 is what he gives out to what is a sound wine that is not his style. His comment is that it is: Fruity and too light. I wonder what he would have given that on an A-F scale?

The great thing about an A-F is that if people want to use the +/- they can. They don’t have to. It is new for wine, so we get to say what each letter means. But people have a good idea of what it really means. My guess is that it will be more like A to C- with the +/- and below that just a D or F. So, most of the wines we want to drink are going to be from A+ to B-. Some value daily drinkers could be C+. So if we look more carefully, the range of wines we’d actually drink there are only 7 slots we can pick from. Plus, I think it is pretty clear that if a wine is getting a D, we are saying it is bad. In the example above, the guy giving a wine an 80. Is he really saying it is bad? Or is that his OK. Fair? What does it mean to him?

Please don’t try to convert the A-F scale into the 100 point scale. That defeats the purpose. Let’s say this is a new scale.

Of course, it will likely not be used outside of WB, but if it was used here, we’d all be able to understand the ratings more clearly.

19

But, there will never be “uniform meaning of the standards from person to person” regardless of which scale is used — even the binary system is not impervious to this inherent character trait of subjective rating systems. One man’s 85 is another man’s 90 is another man’s garbage is another man’s treasure, and such … [head-bang.gif]

Why can’t we just accept that people use rating systems differently, and leave it at that? There is no shortcut for getting to know any given reviewer’s palate and TN/Scoring tendencies.

I will say, however, that I do believe it would be interesting to see fellow WB’ers use whatever New WB Rating System is decided-upon when they score wines in addition to whatever scale they’ve otherwise used. I’m willing to play along when, and if, a decision on the New WB Rating System is made; to that end, I will score wines on the 100 point scale, as I usually do, as well as with the New WB Rating System. I think it will be particularly interesting to see how individual tasters line-up the 100 point scale with particular demarcations on the New WB Rating System.

20

I personally like the Larry/Moe/Curly system that was developed some years ago.
Here is a short description. It is simple and seems to meet all the best criteria of a rating system.

"
The quality of Moe-ness in a rating denotes the rough, harsh qualities of tannin and acidity. A wine with lots of Moe pokes you in the palate, slaps your taste buds, snarls “Spread out!”, demands “See that?” to your tongue before bopping it with a closed fist.

A wine with Larry is easygoing, simple, inoffensive, soft, just trying hard not to grate.

Wines of great character and special distinction fall into the Curly range. It takes something profound and complex to falsetto, “Oh, a wise guy!” It takes character to muse, “I’m trying ta think, but nuttin happens!” Only the deepest and most profound can howl, “Moe, Larry, the cheese!”

But, my friends, there is a dark side. Some wines, without being actively bad, are bland or clumsy, really more lame than awful. They’re recognizably wine, but poor substitutes for the REAL experience. Such wines are Shemps. "

71 Vogue Musigny gets a Triple Curly from me for sure!