• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Another thought on "half scores"--are they necessary?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Another thought on "half scores"--are they necessary?

    I have been pondering something the last couple days since I scribed at a recent show. The judge I was scribing for repeatedly would tell me "small six" or "small seven".....I was to actually write a much smaller 6 or 7 than the other "regular" numbers. I have to ask---would any competitor understand the meaning of this? I don't think I would. So it begs me to ask again....if the range of a 5 or 7 or 9 is so broad to judges that it's either a "small" or "large" number, why wouldn't we be better served to give them the option of half or quarter numbers?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    "There is just as much horse sense as ever, but the horses have most of it"

  • #2
    1-10 isn't enough now? I say, rather than see little sixes and big sixes, why don't we see 3's and 9's and 10's and everything in between? It would make the scoring much more exciting, in my opinion.

    Comment


    • #3
      I've scribed for several judges who like to use plus or minus symbols to give their scores a little stronger indication of how strong (or weak) that score actually was.

      *I* would get it, if I saw that on my test - I'm thinking it should be clear to others too... but is it? (question for the masses here )

      Honestly, if the sizes of numbers were different on my test, I wouldn't give it ANY thought. Might just chalk it up to the scribe being inconsistent in printing or something.

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree with honey...I'd just assume the scribe was trying to keep up. I've seen +'s & -'s though and that made sense.
        Jennifer Walker
        Proud owner of Capt Han Solo+, Arabian stallion http://www.capthansolo.com
        Author, freelance writer http://www.authorjennwalker.com

        Comment

        • Original Poster

          #5
          Originally posted by caevent View Post
          1-10 isn't enough now? I say, rather than see little sixes and big sixes, why don't we see 3's and 9's and 10's and everything in between? It would make the scoring much more exciting, in my opinion.

          I scribed SEVERAL 3s this weekend, many 4s and even a 0 for a move that was not performed.

          I like the + and - idea. I've never seen that but I would understand it.
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          "There is just as much horse sense as ever, but the horses have most of it"

          Comment


          • #6
            I have scribed tons and recall ONE judge doing the plus/minus thing. She would also use it in case there was a tie that couldn't be broken easily via the collective scores. That would seem to make sense to most competitors. I would never notice a "small" number and think it means something!

            1-10 seems to be plenty. But, lots of judges seem stuck in the 4-7 range and rarely venture outside of it. I like when I scribe for a judge that gives 3's and 8's.

            Comment


            • #7
              I scribed at a schooling show where the judge pointed out the the very obvious horse bobbing aroud the ring with rein lameness had nothing wrong, he was "self-half halting".
              Seriously....
              "The sea was angry that day, my friends - like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli"

              Comment


              • #8
                "Half scores" are bullshit, and should be reported to the show management. If a judge can't tell whether s/he should give a six or a seven, they shouldn't be judging. That's what all those lovely little numbers are there for, after all.

                That said, one wonderful judge I scribed for years ago, would say things like, "Oh, give her a tiny little six for that movement.", or "A seven, with love." Since I didn't know how to write "with love" in the score box and have the scorer know what was intended, I just gave the rider a seven. Or a six. Nobody questioned, nor should they have, IMO.
                In loving memory of Laura Jahnke.
                A life lived by example, done too soon.
                www.caringbridge.org/page/laurajahnke/

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think half-scores are a good idea. They're used in other subjectively-judged sports. Our final scores are calculated out to three decimal places -- no one thinks THAT's bullshit, do they? What's wrong with allowing a judge to show that a movement was better than "satisfactory," but not yet "fairly good"?
                  Donald Trump - proven liar, cheat, traitor and sexual predator! Hillary Clinton won in 2016, but we have all lost.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    it does have the advantage of giving the 'i was robbed' folks more to complain about.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SillyHorse View Post
                      I think half-scores are a good idea. They're used in other subjectively-judged sports.
                      Yes, they are. But those are usually sports like diving, where results are instant and not a calculated percentage. In gymnastics, there is the possibility of half point deductions from a particular movement; in dressage, there is not.

                      Our final scores are calculated out to three decimal places -- no one thinks THAT's bullshit, do they?
                      The final dressage score is a percentage in and of itself. Why do we need to further complicate matters by giving percentages of percentages? You'd drive the poor scorers even crazier by pulling a stunt like that. Not to mention, the scribes

                      What's wrong with allowing a judge to show that a movement was better than "satisfactory," but not yet "fairly good"?
                      Um, they have the option of using 0-10 to show their opinion of each and every movement. Hell, most judges don't use more than 4 through 8, anyway. Using the full scoring range should be MORE than sufficient. If it isn't, then, as I said before, the judge has no business judging.

                      JMO.
                      In loving memory of Laura Jahnke.
                      A life lived by example, done too soon.
                      www.caringbridge.org/page/laurajahnke/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Um, well, it seems there are people who think the current "option" available to the judges could use some improvement.
                        Donald Trump - proven liar, cheat, traitor and sexual predator! Hillary Clinton won in 2016, but we have all lost.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Some of the current judges would like to see half points, but most of them don't want that change. We talked about that on our very first "L" dressage judge training program meeting. Here is a quote from one of my articles from my website:

                          ***First day an international Judge and GP rider and trainer Jeff Moore gave us a lecture about dressage judging and dressage Biomechanics. Dressage in US is fairly new, USDF was formed only 33 years ago and USDF “L” Judging program was formed 15 years ago to create better US dressage judges. Dressage judging in the US is constantly evolving and changing for the better. US judges continue to debate what is the best for the future of the US dressage.

                          One of those hot topics is the “Decimal thinking” in judging. Most of the performances will fall in to the range of “5” to “7” scores. A score “6” can be a “strong 6” and a “weak 6” (6.1 and 6.9 – a difference of a full 10% of the final score), but judges have no way of showing this distinction to the rider. If one “whole-number” judge will give 5 for all of the movements that were 5.5 and another “whole-number” judge will give 6 for all of the movements that were 5.5 – those judges will end up with the final scores of 50% and 60% - a 10% difference for the same ride.

                          Current judges are forced to come up with different systems of “manipulating” the scores to be able to show the decimal thinking to riders and even up the final scores. For example if one pirouette was a 5.8 and another was a 6.2, instead of giving a 6 for both, judge can wait to see both pirouettes and give a score of 5 for the first one and 7 for the second one to show the difference to the rider, but the scores will even themselves up to be 6 in the end. However, obviously it’s not the perfect way of judging and helping riders, so dressage is in need of more sophisticated judging system, a “decimal judging system.”***

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Oh, please. You're kidding, right?

                            What's wrong with using the existing system? When every judge actually uses the 0-10 scale, then come and talk about decimals. But as long as no one gives less than a 3 or more than an 8, it's ludicrous to contemplate unnecessary adjustments to the current system. Especially when, in the "L" program, one must justify if one's scores are more than a percentage or two different from one's peers.

                            The whole judges' certification program needs to be revamped, IMHO, but the place to start is not with the scoring system.

                            Carry on.
                            In loving memory of Laura Jahnke.
                            A life lived by example, done too soon.
                            www.caringbridge.org/page/laurajahnke/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I've seen (and received) the plus and minus signs and I think it helps me "get" that the point was on the verge of going one way or another. Not too difficult to comprehend.

                              Don't think we need half-points. It's like being half pregnant. You either are or you aren't. Unnecessary IMHO.
                              "Dreams are the touchstone of our characters." Henry David Thoreau
                              Touchstone Farm
                              www.bytouchstonefarm.com

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                I am not in favor of half points. Oyut here, the plus and minus system works well to give the riders a heads up, and the resulting percentages are enough to separate the placings.

                                That said--here is a good summary of the idea:

                                http://www.eurodressage.com/editor/w...ts-sequal.html
                                one oak, lots of canyons

                                http://horsesportnews.wordpress.com/

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Good grief-It can be hard enough to scribe as it is, w/o 1/2 points. And smaller numbers are ridiculous.

                                  And yes there shoud be more 2 & 3 and 8&9 scores. A horse with a lovely round canter, on a lovely round circle with lovely round upward and downward transitions derves a high score, not the occaisional 8 that gets doled out.
                                  Some riders change their horse, they change their saddle, they change their teacher; they never change themselves.

                                  Remember the horse does all the work, we just sit there and look pretty.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by ESG View Post
                                    Especially when, in the "L" program, one must justify if one's scores are more than a percentage or two different from one's peers.
                                    No, it's not from "peers" but from instructors. and it's has to be a 2 point difference: if one participant gives an 8 and the instructor gives a 6 and another "L" participant gives a 4 - b/c it's different two points from instructor's score - both participants have to justify their scores. However, if one participant gives a 5 and another gives a 7, but instructor gives a 6 – since it’s only 1 point away from instructor – it’s not being questioned. I've seen that happen.

                                    Comment

                                    Working...
                                    X