Because it’s a very serious affair, all Effervescents du Monde judges are given feedback on their judging after the event. Such tastings are a tricky affairs: it’s all too easy to assign meaning to results where there is none, for judges to be lead or allowed to exhibit prejudice, and so on. I was impressed how at Effervescents du Monde all the judging was conducted totally blind and totally without influence between judges to ensure as proper a judgement as possible. An interesting commentary on such issues, and a related analysis of the famous Judgement of Paris is here.
The feedback on my Effervescents du Monde judging came in the form of a report as to how my judging compared to the other 4 judges in each panel, as follows (where StdDev means within the standard deviation around the mean):
|Below StdDev||Within StdDev||Above StdDev||Feedback on my written comments|
|Day1||6||8||3||Average expressivity of language, and somewhat in line with other judges|
|Day2||5||10||2||Average expressivity of language, and very much in line with other judges|
|Day3||1||14||2||Rich language, and very much in line with other judges|
So in summary I definitely got more with the consensus of others as I got more experience in judging in that style, and by day3 was very much in line. Also, I started out slightly harsh, perhaps. I’m pretty happy with the results. The next question is whether they will invite me back next year as promised, and whether I will enjoy it as much without being in a cosseted group of Plumptonites protecting my poor language skills. I very much hope to return.