• 1. Group Judging With Feedback

    Goal:

    To improve judging skills of participants.

    Venue:

    Session in a technical program presented as part of a competition or festival.

    Examples include MCAB, AHA National, Conference, Dixie Cup.

    Activity Description:

    The session is the judging of several beers. Participants and a mock judging panel composed of expert judges evaluate each sample, filling out score sheets. The mock panel discusses the sample and arrives at a panel score for the sample. Each participant evaluates their perceptions of the sample and fills out their score sheet, comparing with the mock panel.

    Copies of the mock panel score sheets are distributed to all participants, hopefully before they leave the event, and posted online. The samples can be very good examples of the style, poor examples, entered in the wrong category, or doctored. Some evaluations can be long, allowing for extended discussion, and some can be timed to simulate a typical judging environment.

    To equalize the timing of tasting across all participants, we suggest that kegged samples be used for large sessions. Participants can queue up, receive their sample, and start evaluating it as they return to their seats. This way, everybody evaluates a sample fresh from the dispensing container.

    It would be great to have special two-part score sheets. At the end of each evaluation, participants can tear off the second copy and pass it in (without any personal information on the form) to provide feedback to the organizers.

    2. Triangle Tests

    Goal:

    To improve sensory skills of participants.

    Venue:

    Session in a technical program presented as part of a competition or festival.

    Examples include MCAB, AHA National, Conference, Dixie Cup. This could be part of the Group Judging With Feedback session described above.

    Activity Description:

    The session is the evaluation of one or more sample sets. Each sample set consists of three identical containers, each containing a sample beer. Two of the containers contain the same sample type and the third is a different beer. The objective is to identify the odd sample.

    After the evaluation period is completed, the correct sample is identified. We could have participants identify the odd sample on ballots that are collected and tabulated to provide feedback to the group. In past sessions, we have tabulated the results with a show of hands. While this violates one of the general principles, we do not currently know of an alternate method, which provides immediate and easy tabulation capability.

    Paper ballots can be tabulated relatively quickly to provide appropriate feedback. It would be nice to equalize the timing of tasting across all participants. Also, queuing up to receive three glasses does not seem reasonable. Previously, we have distributed the samples with lots of volunteers and trays of glasses, and this has worked pretty well.