Topic: Group test scoring system

[solarsplace]

Hi

Have been discussing the subject of how the scoring is done on the group tests with my collegue. I am not for one moment suggesting that any previous results should be changed at all, as they were all already judged based on the original system.

However, we really feel that the 'taste' catagory should really be weighted higher than any other catagory.

It may also be nice to have a 'Presentation' or 'Visual Appeal' catagory - as people do eat with their eyes too.

I just feel it is not quite right to have recipes being champions over some varied opinions of how 'cheap' the recipe is or how easy to make. Those things are important, but should not bias the outcome so heavily.

It may be helpful to have a comments field for each result too - just something simple for testers to write things like 'really liked this xyz, but felt the grated efg could have been reduced to bla bla bla etc.'

Any thoughts?

[Peripatetic Phil]

However, we really feel that the 'taste' catagory should really be weighted higher than any other category.

It may also be nice to have a 'Presentation' or 'Visual Appeal' category - as people do eat with their eyes too.

I just feel it is not quite right to have recipes being champions over some varied opinions of how 'cheap' the recipe is or how easy to make. Those things are important, but should not bias the outcome so heavily.

It may be helpful to have a comments field for each result too - just something simple for testers to write things like 'really liked this xyz, but felt the grated efg could have been reduced to bla bla bla etc.'

Any thoughts?

Full support.  Below is what I wrote to Chris (off-list) some time ago :

Surprised at the omission of some potentially useful columns, such as :

o Authenticity
o Probability of becoming preferred recipe
o Necessity to deviate from stated cooking times
o Probability of benefiting from fewer ingredients
o Probability of benefiting from additional ingredients

and a free-format for each :

o If I were to make this recipe again, I would ...

Of these, at least "Authenticity" and "Probability of becoming preferred recipe" could usefully affect the overall outcome, and the other fields would be potentially useful to others thinking of trying the recipe.  WDYT ?

** Phil.

[Ramirez]

I completely agree Solar and thought exactly the same when doing the Bombay group test.

I think the categories should be as follows:

• Taste (needs a heavier weighting)
• Appearance
• Texture
• Ease to make

[Malc.]

I think I have been fairly consistent in saying that I would prefer the taste total to be highlighted like the grand total is and perhaps remove the grand total completely. The cost and ease on making something should not affect the score you'd have Big Mac's beating a dish made by Michelle Roux Snr!

I'm not sure I agree with all the additional points though, i'm not an authority and would be very uneasy about suggesting authenticity or that something should or should not be added to a recipe submitted by another member, unless that member contacted me directly and asked.

Presentation is also dependant on our interpretation of a dish. If you look at the photo's posted in the Bombay Aloo topic, you'll note that we all produced different looking dishes.

I quite like the idea of a column for the probability of doing again though.

[Peripatetic Phil]

I'm not sure I agree with all the additional points though, i'm not an authority and would be very uneasy about suggesting authenticity or that something should or should not be added to a recipe submitted by another member, unless that member contacted me directly and asked.

Presentation is also dependant on our interpretation of a dish. If you look at the photo's posted in the Bombay Aloo topic, you'll note that we all produced different looking dishes.

I quite like the idea of a column for the probability of doing again though.

All points noted, but I am surprised that you don't feel that authenticity, and possible additions and/or subtractions, should feature in the assessments.  They represent two totally different concepts, so let me start by summarising my overall position and then addressing each in turn :

Overall, our comments are friendly critiques : no-one is setting out to "score points" over anyone else, so any comments made should be interpreted as friendly commentary.  From that perspective, authenticity seems key to me, in that it is the one thing for which we are all striving : to not be allowed to say that, in my opinion, someone's (say) Chicken Madras seems totally authentic, whilst someone else's seems less so, seems an odd restriction.  As to additions/subtractions, these are intended as positive contributions to the recipe : for example, several of the Bombay Aloo recipes would have benefitted (IMHO) from salt and/or and mustard seeds : why do you feel it is not appropriate to say this unless asked ?  Presumably no active member's recipe would be included in a group test if he or she objected, so by allowing their recipe to be judged are they not also inviting friendly comment on potential improvements ?

** Phil.

[chriswg]

I see your points, it was hard coming up with a framework that everyone was happy with. I think the taste category is basically the same as an authenticity field. I assume you are talking about an authentic taste?

For me, I look at the best taste scores first but then compare the ease to make. For chicken tikka, Dips wasn't my favourite taste wise, but it is so damn easy to make I have adopted it as my standard now.

I'm happy to highlight the taste result in each column but it is down to people to analyse the results. CA's are notoriously complex and expensive to make, even if they were the best tasting I probably wouldn't bother making them often.

[Peripatetic Phil]

I see your points, it was hard coming up with a framework that everyone was happy with. I think the taste category is basically the same as an authenticity field. I assume you are talking about an authentic taste?

IMHO, no, Chris.  I feel that I could happily write "This tasted absolutely superb, but nothing like I have ever eaten in a BIR".  Do you not feel the same ?

** Phil.

[Malc.]

I feel that I could happily write "This tasted absolutely superb, but nothing like I have ever eaten in a BIR".

This is where I would have a problem, as I said I am no authority. I have a limited experience of the different dishes as to be found in a typical restaurant, for example, I have never eaten a Madras! I do appreciate where you are coming from though.

I accept that friendly critique could be useful but not in the results table. Tasting notes should be kept within the group test topic. A link could be placed in the pinned and closed results topic, pointing to the relevant group test topic. Members can then read up on the 'full story'.

[Cory Ander]

CA's are notoriously complex and expensive to make

What a strange comment 

My curry base is about as simple and as cheap as you can get (i.e. minimal and cheap ingredients, no pre-frying of ingredients...simply chuck the ingredients in water....simmer for an hour....and it's ready!).  Of course, you could skip the curry base and follow a TRADITIONAL (rather than BIR) curry cooking method.....if that makes it "simpler".

Granted, my spice mix contains a few more ingredients than the typical coriander + cumin + turmeric + curry powder + paprika (or chilli) mix....but otherwise adds little extra complexity or cost...provided the other (minor) ingredients are to hand (which, if you cook curries seriously, they really should be).  Of course, you could make it "simpler" by using curry powder, or paste from a jar.  Then again, a curry sauce from a jar would be simpler still 

I specify limited precooking of meat or vegetables which, though simpler, is contrary to BIR methods.  It really should be done (does that make it simpler or more complex?) if one is truly trying to replicate BIR curries.

Use of "spiced oil" is specified as optional.  BUT, if you really want the final percentages, in BIR taste and smell, you are probably going to want to do this (or at least something similar).

Thereafter, my recipes (my main dish recipes anyway) are about as quick, simple and as cheap as they can be (e.g. they use no expensive ghee or oils) and follow typical BIR techniques.

Where are they "notoriously complex and expensive"?   

I think you are either generalising too much or you are equating "complex" and "expensive" with personal none availability of particular spices/precooked ingredients/pre-made masalas/pre-prepared curry base, etc. 

It doesn't necessarily make a recipe more complex just because a recipe calls for, say, dried fenugreek leaves (or a spice, or a spice mix, or a curry base, or pre-cooked ingredients, or whatever), but they aren't to hand.

Regarding "cheapness", I don't think one can really reliably comment unless one does a proper costing of ingredients and time. 

For what it's worth, I judge curries on how closely they resemble BIR curries regarding:

• Taste
• Smell
• Appearance/Texture

I expect the ingredients and methods to closely resemble those of typical BIRs and for the
ingredients to be to hand.

Perhaps "BIR-like" (or words to that effect) should be an assessable attribute?  Perhaps this is what Phil means by "authenticity" (opposed to meaning that it resembles "authentic" or "traditional" Indian cuisine)?  In which case I agree.

I agree that "taste" should be weighted more heavily than the other assessable attributes (maybe a score out of 20 for taste and out of 10 for the others?).

Summary comments would be interesting. 

Notes on ANY deviation to the published recipe are ESSENTIAL, in my opinion.

In the context of these "Group Tests", it doesn't much matter anyway because "testers" aren't following recipes to the letter....it's purely "for fun" after all.....

[chriswg]

Hi CA

It's good to see you still have some fire in your belly (must be all those Vindaloos!).

It's a shame you don't post much any more apart from to reply to posts people make about your recipes. Your arguments are usually well considered and backed up, rather than moaning for the sake of it as some trolls do.

Anyway, sorry to pick on your recipes but my point was that ease to make is as important as taste for me (assuming the result is still very tasty). I'd happily do 20 minutes less prep for a result that is 95% as good as a long recipe.

The reason why yours are longer is (I assume) in part down to the lack of availability of pastes in Oz. For example, to make your Tikka to spec from scratch (which I grudgingly did) you need:

About 1kg skinless, boneless chicken breasts (diced into about 1? inch cubes)
150g Greek (or plain) yoghurt
2 tbsp vegetable oil
2 tbsp fresh lemon juice
3 cloves garlic (chopped)
2 tbsp fresh coriander leaves (chopped)
1 tbsp tomato paste (double concentrated)
1 tsp mint jelly (NOT mint sauce in vinegar)
1 tsp mild curry powder (any decent one will do)
1 tsp cumin powder
1 tsp garam masala (any decent one will do)
1/2 tsp salt
2 chopped red chillies (optional)
Approximately 120ml milk
40g (about 8 teaspoons) coriander powder
30g (about 6 teaspoons) cumin powder
40g (about 8 teaspoons) garlic powder (not garlic salt!)
40g (about 8 teaspoons) ground paprika
20g (about 5 teaspoons) ginger powder
20g (about 5 teaspoons) mango powder
20g (about 5 teaspoons) dried mint leaves (finely ground)
10g (about 2 teaspoons) chilli powder (optional)
10g (about 2 teaspoons) powdered red food colouring (optional)
5g   (about 1 teaspoon) powdered yellow food colouring (optional)

Compared to dips that uses paste:

- 1kg chicken pieces (on the bone)
- 1 tbsp garlic/ginger paste
- 1.5 tbsp mix powder
- 1 tbsp dried fenugreek leaves
- 1 tbsp kashmiri masala paste (Patak)
- 2 tbsp tandoori paste (Pasco)
- 2.5 tbsp tikka paste (Patak)
- 4 tbsp natural yoghurt
- 1 tbsp red powdered food colouring
- 2 tsp lemon dressing
- 1 tbsp fresh coriander leaves

If you can get those three pastes over there I suggest you give his recipe a go and compare it to yours. I imagine yours is similar to how a good BIR chef would have cooked 10 years ago when the pastes weren't available, but times have moved on. Pastes are faster, cheaper and I think tastier.