Judging Sheet Legibility

[Don H.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

There is also the "NCRS Judging Quality Survey" form with all the judges names on it. I'm not sure if it is still used but I use it at our Chapter Meets. Don H.

[Brian D.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

I can attest to George writing his member number on the sheet; he judged my car just last week. That's a great idea. I will start doing that myself.

[Peter G.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

Same issue here Brian. It is also amazing how many times high level judges don't know what they are doing or looking at.

I print my name with my NCRS# that way a owner can look me up if he/she has a question. Now..not sure I will remember the exact deduction on your particular car as we do judge many many cars during a year. Sometimes I can't remember what I had for breakfast?

Please remember we are all "volunteers" and human..mistakes may occur, but it is a continous learning experience for both judges and owners.

I am beginning to see on the "white sheet" the owners get, the judges names preprinted on the sheet. Also all judges are requested to wear event name badges.

[Gene M.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

I want to get back to the original post of legibility of judging deduction comments. At our chapter meet we have a few checks and balances. First at the start of judging all are requested to PRINT no cursive. Every deduction MUST has a notation as to the reason for deduction. Wrong is not a reason. But wrong year Corvette part or wrong date does not precede build is ok. After review with owner and judges name is PRINTED at end the sheets are turned over to the team leader. Team leader briefly reviews deductions and comments for legibility and appropriate content. Any explanation that is not legible is returned to the two judges for correction. Any deduction that looks "out of character" is reviewed by team leader just to insure continuity. At this time all full deductions must be initialed by team leader. While judges were judging the full deductions are identified by a line next to the entry.

Not done yet, tabulation again reviews the sheets to insure that each deduction has a explanation. Also they check each full deduction for team leader's initials. Anything again "out of character" is brought to the team leader's attention. The "out of character" could be the 10% rule for condition points or scorings that do not follow standard deductions. So see there are a lot of people looking at the sheets and the more eyes the less errant judging is.

My biggest return of sheets is for sloppy printing that I can't read. But that is generally limited to one or two entries. After the first episode the following sheets are good. I have some judges that have impeccable printing, never an issue. Judges is like anything else there are some that have high standards and others not so much.

[Ed S.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

Gene,
It is great that your chapter (and I am sure others) are taking great pains to ensure quality judging and quality documentation of the judging process. That said, I want to get back to the automation concept of judging for a moment.

Automation would accommodate and facilitate everything your chapter is doing. In addition, it would also provide aggregate results that can me analyzed within a chapter or across the entire NCRS for trends, issues, and inconsistencies in results (which does not necessarily mean the judging is an issue or inconsistent, it may be the guidance or standard or even historical resources). I think that is where the real, unmeasurable benefit of an automated process might be realized.

[Gene M.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

Gene,
It is great that your chapter (and I am sure others) are taking great pains to ensure quality judging and quality documentation of the judging process. That said, I want to get back to the automation concept of judging for a moment.

Automation would accommodate and facilitate everything your chapter is doing. In addition, it would also provide aggregate results that can me analyzed within a chapter or across the entire NCRS for trends, issues, and inconsistencies in results (which does not necessarily mean the judging is an issue or inconsistent, it may be the guidance or standard or even historical resources). I think that is where the real, unmeasurable benefit of an automated process might be realized.

Ed, I understand the way of electronic automation but the cost would be to much for our chapter to even consider. Keep in mind the age group we are dealing with.... gray and bald. Most of the membership within our chapter are solid axle guys. Most just use standard flip phones and that is as modern as they get. Key in and scanning are "out of reality" for us (unless my wife does it). A pencil is as sophisticated as we get.

[Russ S.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

Integrity is what prevented me from saying more!

That's a generalized 'drive by' comment that is easy to throw out there. Maybe you could muster up the integrity to be more specific.

Mark

[Ara G.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

When I judge either I or my team partner personally go over all the sheets, deductions, compliments (nobody ever mentions those) etc with the owner. A fully advised and educated owner is a happy owner. After all, that's what this entire organization is based upon - sharing knowledge and expertise that we all have for these fantastic cars. The only issue with legibility of judging sheets was at out recent chapter meet. I/we judged in the rain for hours (I think a great picture of Joel Stieglitz drying the judging sheets in the men's room using the air blown hand dryer in our chapter newsletter was priceless). Also, I always print my name and legibly note my member number. So the owner hears and sees all of the deductions that we do (so long as the judge follows this methodology - and if they don't then shame on the owner for not complaining about the entries not being explained to them). Further, to show how judges are not perfect we still use pencil - for erasing. I love the organization, and think automated judging will prove to susceptible to the unscrupulous, cost prohibitive and take a lot of the nostalgia out of what we do.....but that's just my two cents. ARA

[Mark D.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

Integrity is what prevented me from saying more!

Russ,

I am sure you're a good fellow and I look forward to having a beer with you but, I'm gonna have to holler bull***** on that response.

Regards,

Kramden

[Joe R.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

Gentlemen, cost is or should not be a factor for using an electronic pad as I am using one right now that cost less than $90.00. Bought from Wally World and can do anything you need including word processing (built in) and Excel included.
JR

[Brian M.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

Chapters within a region could share an I pad system.

[Ed S.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

Gentlemen, cost is or should not be a factor for using an electronic pad as I am using one right now that cost less than $90.00. Bought from Wally World and can do anything you need including word processing (built in) and Excel included.
JR

Joe,
I agree. If the NCRS IT team can create and operate this fantastic website they should be able to create a few tally / scoring forms and score integration spreadsheets in their sleep.

[Gary C.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

Ed,

Great suggestion "Just thinking - perhaps its time for the judging process to enter the 21st century. Instead of paper and a stubby pencil have judging sheets converted to an app or a form that judges complete on an NCRS or Chapter provided iPad and sign digitally."

Big questions:
1) who's going to cover the hand held device cost?
2) who's going to write the app code?
3) who's going to write the server code?
4) who's going to maintain the devices and code?

Very good idea that we've discussed since approx 2006, but the 4 questions get in in the way.

Gary
....

[Ed S.]

Re: Judging Sheet Legibility

Gary,

Good questions, I don't have a clue. I've only been an NCRS member for about a year and I don't have an understanding or visibility of the organizational structure of financial management. But clearly, the NCRS is a professional organization and I would be surprised if it could not find a way to fund the technology if it was determined that the suggested capabilities contributed to and enhanced accomplishment of its purpose and mission. Perhaps the first step is for the NCRS leadership to explore the concept and make a determination if benefits would be realized if implemented. Again, I am sure that if "automation" was deemed essential or at last highly beneficial to efficient operations the leadership will find a way to fund the initiative.