Inside Rating Systems
Posted in:
Tasting Notes
This is cross posted from my blog, The Chocolate Note. There is a limit on length of forum replies, to read the entire post go
here .While I respect the opinions of other writers and enjoy reading their reviews and celebrate the diversity within the field, like everyone I do have my own opinion.Although I use numbers, I do not use a weighting system in the same way chocolate is rated at 70%, as I feel that chocolate and science do not go hand in hand, except at the level where high art meets high science, in other words -- alchemy. Alchemy is what creates chocolate -- mother natures hand and the hand of an artisan together create that which we know as chocolate. Therefore, a true rating system created by a great alchemist would be far more complex than the little charts used by 70%.Perhaps neither I nor any other chocolate writer are actually up to the task. So what we are dealing with is opinions. Chocolate is a complex and mysterious elixir created by nature, and one that science readily admits that it knows nearly nothing of. Therefore I submit that chocolate is too big to fit those narrow categories in the weighting system.I do not use texture, snap, or appearance in my evaluations of chocolate. In my view these things are fun and interesting, a part of the packaging if you will, but not an essential component of what chocolate truly is. It seems to me that, while I may enjoy a good snap or sheen as much as the next person, they are almost a separate art form or category which should be considered as something different than the basic question of what is the true quality of a chocolate.I also believe that the same person can taste the same chocolate at different times, and depending on what they are really in the mood for, and other subjective factors, and come up with different ratings. This is just part of the mystery that is chocolate, and that is a person. Neither are machines. So I dont think a linear and empirical rating will quite work.The process by which I rate chocolate is still evolving. For chocolate bars that are not flavored, at this time I am giving a rating to the aroma, one to the taste experience, and another to the finish. I then take an average of the three. Right now I am playing with the idea of possibly giving each rating individually instead of taking the average of the three, but am at the moment still combining and giving one overall rating to each chocolate. For filled chocolates and flavored bars, I come up with one rating based on the overall experience.Perhaps it is simply a matter of my own personal right/left brain balance that I choose to use numbers, yet with a more subjective system. I say subjective in quotes because really, isnt it all subjective, isnt that what we are here for?Yet a word system might just be a little too subjective for my blood. I feel that whereas a very good could be so differently interpreted, an 8.6 is pretty clear. However, with respect to all kinds of minds, here is a rough translation:9-10 supreme/excellent/ superb/fantastic/heavenly/sublime8-9 very good/excellent7-8 good/very good6-7 pretty good/good5-6 okay/pretty good4-5 just there/okay/mediocre3-4 pretty bad/bad2-3 awful1-2 really disgusting0-1 inflicting injury/dangerous/poisonIf I am using numbers but not strictly using math to come up with them, then why do I use decimals? Why do I say 8.6 instead of just jumping from 8 to 9? Well, because sometimes chocolate is just better than an 8, but not really quite a 9. And I guess because my mind likes math, 8.5 is not good enough either, no, its closer to 9 than that, but not much.