Comments on: A standardized wine rating system? In an age of chaos and diversity?? http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/ Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:54:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: Snooth Blog » Glasses Half Full http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17476 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:40:17 +0000 http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17476 [...] The jury’s still out and I’m listening to users on the subject (here, here, here and here are some bloggers reactions to the general idea of standardizing ratings), but half stars are an option, as is simply embracing the chaos and letting people rate in their native system - it’ll be confusing to the reader, but they could adapt… [...] […] The jury’s still out and I’m listening to users on the subject (here, here, here and here are some bloggers reactions to the general idea of standardizing ratings), but half stars are an option, as is simply embracing the chaos and letting people rate in their native system - it’ll be confusing to the reader, but they could adapt… […]

]]> by: Unified Wine Blogger Wine Rating System http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17176 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:40:37 +0000 http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17176 [...] The conversation around my proposal for a unified wine blogger rating system has brought both sides of the numerical issue to the forefront. In the comments here and around the blogosphere we have seen agreement, push-back and, well, poetry. [...] […] The conversation around my proposal for a unified wine blogger rating system has brought both sides of the numerical issue to the forefront. In the comments here and around the blogosphere we have seen agreement, push-back and, well, poetry. […]

]]> by: David Hageman http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17165 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:01:14 +0000 http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17165 I believe the problem with rating systems is they are used incorrectly. A score of 92 or 3 1/2 stars tells you nothing about the wine. In the case of movies, the 3 1/2 stars tells you nothing about the movie either! So why bother with ratings? Example: I have two movie loving friends named Blake and Steve. I know if Blake tells me that a movie is a 5 star movie, that I will really love it! Steve is a bit different. I know that I never enjoyed a movie he has raved about. So if he gives a movie 5 stars, I don't bother to go see it. The ratings are good because they give me some perspective on how much they enjoyed a movie. The problem is that ratings need *context*. If I look at a wine magazine and I just see the name of a wine with the number 92 beside it - it tells me nothing. If I read this blog and say that I generally agree with author's tastes (remember taste *is* subjective) then when I see the 92, then I know I will probably enjoy it. You can change the scale, you can change the objects used to illustrate the rating, but all rating systems are useless without context. I have worked on a solution to this problem on my website. If you would like me to discuss more about it, please just let me know! I believe the problem with rating systems is they are used incorrectly. A score of 92 or 3 1/2 stars tells you nothing about the wine. In the case of movies, the 3 1/2 stars tells you nothing about the movie either! So why bother with ratings?

Example:

I have two movie loving friends named Blake and Steve. I know if Blake tells me that a movie is a 5 star movie, that I will really love it! Steve is a bit different. I know that I never enjoyed a movie he has raved about. So if he gives a movie 5 stars, I don’t bother to go see it.

The ratings are good because they give me some perspective on how much they enjoyed a movie. The problem is that ratings need *context*. If I look at a wine magazine and I just see the name of a wine with the number 92 beside it - it tells me nothing.

If I read this blog and say that I generally agree with author’s tastes (remember taste *is* subjective) then when I see the 92, then I know I will probably enjoy it.

You can change the scale, you can change the objects used to illustrate the rating, but all rating systems are useless without context.

I have worked on a solution to this problem on my website. If you would like me to discuss more about it, please just let me know!

]]> by: Michelle http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17164 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:29:07 +0000 http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17164 I feel like I'll be left out in the cold if we standardize, but I've got winter coats, so I should be okay. At home, Kevin & I rate our wines using the 20-point AWS scoring system. I then look at the numbers, consider the value, check how I FEEL about the wine, and assign a happy face. But if I'm out at a tasting event, where there is a crowd and little space, I'll just assign a happy face of some sort on the fly. Now granted, there are 5 of my happy faces. But they actually describe how I feel about the wine. I'm never feeling like this: :> ). (That's my interpretation of 4.5 stars.) If it's below this :| , I'm probably not going to buy it again. My local readers love my scale because it's accessible to them - it's somehow familiar (perhaps just non-threatening, all these colorful faces) and makes sense. I'm able to rate a $200 wine against a $10 wine and it's all okay. That's not a plea for everyone to use happy faces. It's simply an explanation and justification for what I use. Not really ready to share the happy little guys anyway. ;-) My biggest issue with standardization, and I mentioned this on Lenn's blog, is that blogging, like wine, is individual. I don't agree with standardizing much across the blogosphere because it's our individuality that makes us all such awesome bloggers. I feel like I’ll be left out in the cold if we standardize, but I’ve got winter coats, so I should be okay. At home, Kevin & I rate our wines using the 20-point AWS scoring system. I then look at the numbers, consider the value, check how I FEEL about the wine, and assign a happy face. But if I’m out at a tasting event, where there is a crowd and little space, I’ll just assign a happy face of some sort on the fly.
Now granted, there are 5 of my happy faces. But they actually describe how I feel about the wine. I’m never feeling like this: :> ). (That’s my interpretation of 4.5 stars.) If it’s below this :| , I’m probably not going to buy it again. My local readers love my scale because it’s accessible to them - it’s somehow familiar (perhaps just non-threatening, all these colorful faces) and makes sense. I’m able to rate a $200 wine against a $10 wine and it’s all okay.
That’s not a plea for everyone to use happy faces. It’s simply an explanation and justification for what I use. Not really ready to share the happy little guys anyway. ;-)
My biggest issue with standardization, and I mentioned this on Lenn’s blog, is that blogging, like wine, is individual. I don’t agree with standardizing much across the blogosphere because it’s our individuality that makes us all such awesome bloggers.

]]> by: el jefe http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17163 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:08:22 +0000 http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17163 I think Joel hit the proverbial nail on the virtual head. Bits are cheap, why not break it down for people? For example if we use Russ's form, we provide a score and a text descriptor for each of the seven criteria. Readers/users could just use the total score or drill deeper for the component scores and descriptions. Their choice. You could even apply that Bayesian stuff to the individual criteria scores, and summarize the text descriptors. No, it doesn't fit into a Twitter message, but what does? Or should I just back away from the Torcido and no one gets hurt? I think Joel hit the proverbial nail on the virtual head. Bits are cheap, why not break it down for people?

For example if we use Russ’s form, we provide a score and a text descriptor for each of the seven criteria. Readers/users could just use the total score or drill deeper for the component scores and descriptions. Their choice. You could even apply that Bayesian stuff to the individual criteria scores, and summarize the text descriptors.

No, it doesn’t fit into a Twitter message, but what does?

Or should I just back away from the Torcido and no one gets hurt?

]]> by: Dr. Debs http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17156 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:53:54 +0000 http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17156 I was initially very supportive of this effort, because it seemed to me to be a way for bloggers to serve as a united counterweight against the big magazines. But it took less than a day for folks to start translating stars into points in the comments on Tim's blog. And for folks to reveal that they would give stars based on a Netflix like "Loved It/Hated it" model. And that very few 5s would be given out. That was enough for me to get seriously cold feet, as I've said over on Tim's site. I use a standard of varietal characteristics weighted against cost. I have four simple categories. I never use pluses or minuses. That's it. Folks seem to like it. What's more, folks seem to buy wine based on it. I guess this is good enough for me--I'm going to be one small voice trying to make big change one consumer at a time. Context is important, and it took only 1 day for the context to evaporate once Tim put up his proposal. I was initially very supportive of this effort, because it seemed to me to be a way for bloggers to serve as a united counterweight against the big magazines.

But it took less than a day for folks to start translating stars into points in the comments on Tim’s blog. And for folks to reveal that they would give stars based on a Netflix like “Loved It/Hated it” model. And that very few 5s would be given out. That was enough for me to get seriously cold feet, as I’ve said over on Tim’s site.

I use a standard of varietal characteristics weighted against cost. I have four simple categories. I never use pluses or minuses. That’s it. Folks seem to like it. What’s more, folks seem to buy wine based on it. I guess this is good enough for me–I’m going to be one small voice trying to make big change one consumer at a time. Context is important, and it took only 1 day for the context to evaporate once Tim put up his proposal.

]]> by: Joel http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17136 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:36:23 +0000 http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17136 First, Amen brother. I think the perception is all wrong. I don't think that a rating system is one-size-fits-all and I don't think its what will solve or simplify the wine finding process. It propagates the idea that referencing a wine has some possibility of being one-to-many. Wine is and always will be a peer-to-peer interaction with the best recommendations coming from people who are familiar with each other. That is why it is a social experience, not just a drink. Trying to create a standard rating you better create a system with many many variables. We don't want to recreate Wine Spectator with a bunch of bloggers instead of a bunch of editors. We need to use the new technologies to create new methods of discovering wines, not re-iterating old methods with a new technology. This doesn't level the playing field, it just replaces editors with bloggers. And since not every wine lover blogs, this creates a new elite class of wine drinkers - those that blog. Lets use those entrepreneurial minds to create new things... First, Amen brother. I think the perception is all wrong. I don’t think that a rating system is one-size-fits-all and I don’t think its what will solve or simplify the wine finding process. It propagates the idea that referencing a wine has some possibility of being one-to-many. Wine is and always will be a peer-to-peer interaction with the best recommendations coming from people who are familiar with each other. That is why it is a social experience, not just a drink. Trying to create a standard rating you better create a system with many many variables.

We don’t want to recreate Wine Spectator with a bunch of bloggers instead of a bunch of editors. We need to use the new technologies to create new methods of discovering wines, not re-iterating old methods with a new technology. This doesn’t level the playing field, it just replaces editors with bloggers. And since not every wine lover blogs, this creates a new elite class of wine drinkers - those that blog. Lets use those entrepreneurial minds to create new things…

]]> by: Wine Life Today http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17122 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:55:40 +0000 http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17122 <strong>A standardized wine rating system? In an age of chaos and diversity??...</strong> Theres a proposal circulating among us wine bloggers to adopt a standard approach to how we rate wine. In a recent post, fellow blogger Tim Elliott of WineCast asks, Is it possible for wine bloggers to choose a single rating system? I offer my thoughts... A standardized wine rating system? In an age of chaos and diversity??…

Theres a proposal circulating among us wine bloggers to adopt a standard approach to how we rate wine. In a recent post, fellow blogger Tim Elliott of WineCast asks, Is it possible for wine bloggers to choose a single rating system? I offer my thoughts…

]]> by: winehiker http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17121 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:51:09 +0000 http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17121 Ward, I'm glad you chimed in - I think you may have hit on something. You go, man! Please keep me posted. Ward, I’m glad you chimed in - I think you may have hit on something. You go, man! Please keep me posted.

]]> by: Ward Bell http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17116 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:27:26 +0000 http://www.californiawinehikes.com/winehiker/1/a-standardized-wine-rating-system-in-an-age-of-chaos-and-diversity/#comment-17116 I like your approach; I think that it ultimately provides data that can be used for comparative purposes -- provides a path towards comparing palates between individuals. I agree that there is great value in using this approach as part of a learning exercise; it would be interesting, to me, to use this (or modified, but similar tools) in a "Wine Tasting Wednesday" where individuals around the country would sample wines from a pre-defined list and then enter their scores into a database that aggregates the scores and builds sets of individuals who have similar "palate profiles." I'm thinking about starting up a blog or a wiki to explore this subject further. I like your approach; I think that it ultimately provides data that can be used for comparative purposes — provides a path towards comparing palates between individuals. I agree that there is great value in using this approach as part of a learning exercise; it would be interesting, to me, to use this (or modified, but similar tools) in a “Wine Tasting Wednesday” where individuals around the country would sample wines from a pre-defined list and then enter their scores into a database that aggregates the scores and builds sets of individuals who have similar “palate profiles.”

I’m thinking about starting up a blog or a wiki to explore this subject further.

]]>