Judge evaluation

[Del Rykert]

Hi John..
    I see it the other way around that accuracy is first then when all 
judges are accurate the consistency will improve.

                             del
               NSRCA - 473

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Judge evaluation


> You sent me to the dictionary on that one, my ignorence is showing!
> From http://www.m-w.com/
>      Main Entry: pro·lix
>      Pronunciation: prO-'liks, 'prO-(")
>      Function: adjective
>      Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French
> prolixe, from Latin prolixus extended, from pro- forward + liquEre to be
> fluid -- more at LIQUID
>      1 : unduly prolonged or drawn out : too long
>      2 : marked by or using an excess of words
>      synonym see WORDY
>      - pro·lix·i·ty  /prO-'lik-s&-tE/ noun
>      - pro·lix·ly adverb
>
>      Seriously, I doubt you can find a popular definition of what is a
> "good judge". As a CD, I am happy to have judges that are available and
> percieved satisfactory by those they are judging. It is a definate plus if
> they have been certified via the NSRCA program.
>       That is normally the best I can hope for.
>      I think the first goal is to jiudging consistant and the second goal
> is accuracy.
>
>


=====================================
# To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.