Seeing Stars At Winewaves.com

There is always discussion about "ratings" that are given to wines by "critics". Many a debate has been sparked when it comes to the "100 point" system. Recently, Tom Wark, over at Fermentation, pointed out how the San Francisco Chronicle has begun using a star system for quantifying ratings to go along with their descriptions. Tom went on to describe the Chronicle's rating system as a "slap" at the 100-point system.

Tom pointed out that the Chronicle previously didn't assign a rating to the wines they reviewed. Their new star system assigns ratings of two to four stars, with half stars, resulting in a 5 level rating system. The star/level rating system is a good one.  But on behalf of Winewaves.com, I would like to defend of the "100-point scale".

Several months after launching Winewaves, I began using a 100-point scale.

I felt the words describing the wines I tasted needed "shorthand", because not everyone has time to read the words.  Combining the label pictures and a number, however, got my viewpoint across very quickly and easily.

If the debate around the 100-point scale revolves around the imprecision of it and the lack of statistical support for differences between wine ratings, then when I added half points, it must have seemed absurd.  However, I don't view the numbers as statistical entities.  I see them as shorthand for three kinds of information.  First, they provide a measure of the quality of an entire "breed" or variety of wines within a price range, currently available.  For example, if I look at a group of 2003 Cotes du Rhone Reds versus another vintage, the average number within each vintage will provide a measure of how the vintages compare.  Second, the numbers give an order to the wines within a breed/variety, vintage and price range.  For example, the 90.5 wine comes in first, the 89 wine second, the 88.5 wine third, the 88 wine fourth and so on.  The differences in the numbers within a breed/price range indicate where wines were very close or further apart in quality.  This kind of information might be lost or exaggerated in a star/level rating system.  And third, the numbers give a feel for "rating inflation or deflation" which may occur as the average of all wines rated are tending higher or lower.

The 100-point scale is not really a 100-point scale anyway.  Regardless of whether you look at Wine Spectator's use of 100 points, or Wine Advocate, or Wine Enthusiast, or Stephen Tanzer, only the top 20 points are typically used.  There are exceptions, going below 80 points, but these don't often get published.  Winewaves.com only assigns ratings of 82 points or above.  If the wine doesn't merit a score this high, I won't post it.  Thus, the winewaves 100-point scale is actually 36 levels.  Most wines are between 85 and 95 points, or 20 levels.

Beverage Dynamics Magazine uses both a five star and 100-point system.  They offer a conversion chart with each group of reviews.  Five star wines are between 92 and 100 points.  Four stars covers 86-91 points.  Three stars covers 80-85 points.  Winewaves.com may begin to add stars to the numerical ratings, in which case all ratings would be between three and five stars.  Like Beverage Dynamics, both methods would be offered for each review.

The star level rating system is almost necessary when wine reviews are the result of a "panel" of "critics" or "judges".  That is because in addition to the potential statistical questions about differences between wines' ratings, there is the variance between judges assessing individual wines to deal with.  A panel rating has a standard deviation which makes assigning a single number troublesome.  Not so with a single reviewer.  You either agree or disagree with the judges palate and resulting review, but the number has no standard deviation attached to it.

Thus far, my sense is that many viewers have gotten some benefit from my assigning numbers to the pictures and words associated with each wine reviewed.  Viewer ship has increased steadily since making the move.  I don't want anyone to make too much out of these numbers, however.  They are just a piece of the overall shorthand, aimed at sharing my palate and evaluations of wines with others.  The goal is to make the buying and enjoyment of wine easier and more rewarding.

The next segment of this series "About Winewaves.com" will focus on the context in which I taste and review wines: place, method, repeated tasting over time, and placing wines into "breed" and price segments for comparison and rating.

Comments

[eric]

FRankly, I think justification of the 100 point rating system is absurd. What about all those numbers that exist below 80? Since they're almost never used they are meaningless, and it's a 20 point system (40 if you're willing to be silly enough to use half points). So why not use a 20 point system? Personally, I use a simple letter grading system. A-F with plus or minus to represent subtleties. It's familiar to most people and not so broad as to be intimidating to average wine drinkers.

[tom]

I think the 100 points scale as you are using it works best when applied to your second point, offering a ranking between various wines. But unless the various wines in the same category are listed next to each other, then this benefit is lost.

That said, I'm not 100% against the 100 point scale. It's greatest benefit is that readers easilyl understand it.

Cheers,
tom...

[Jerry Hall]

Thanks eric and Tom, for your comments. I plan to add a 5-level rating in addition to my use of the 100 point scale. I won't be dropping the 100 scale, however, just adding the 5-level scale. The only thing making me delay is the choice of 5 levels. Do I use 2 to 4 stars with half stars? 3 to 5 stars with half stars? letter grade C through with half grades? This requires more time.

Just so you know, I told people I would "never use a 100 point scale" for a long time before I changed my mind and began using it.

As Tom points out, the 100 point scale is "easily understood" I think it is because most of us dealt with it for 12-20 years of schooling. And rarely did any of us receive less than an 80 grade, if we really made a serious attempt at doing a good job.

[tom]

Jerry:

If I gave out ratings, I'd probably go with 1-5 stars with "pluses" in between. However, I would give out * or *+ ratings for those wines that were just north of "drinkable". That would give me ten levels if I found a *****+ wine. I just don't think my palate is capable of distinquishing greater distances between wines than this.

Cheers,
tom...

[RayJ]

Here are the common-sense meanings for the five star levels I use at spiritofwine.blogspot.com:
* (ONE STAR): What are you feeding me - I can't finish the glass!. ** (TWO STARS): Interesting experience, but I'm pretty much ok if this is the last glass of this I ever get to drink. *** (THREE STARS): I totally enjoyed this, but I'm open to trying another wine tonight too. **** (FOUR STARS): Would pretty much refuse to drink anything else if there is any more of this around. ***** (FIVE STARS): Get between me and the wine bottle at your own risk - I'm likely to want more of this than decorum warrants.