What would you suggest to make the writing of critiques more satisfactory?

Beginning to believe that the whole critique matter requires a re-think as the way it is at the moment is just not satisfactory.

If a critique is to be of any use it needs to be read by anyone in the breed not just the owner and IMO should be written with this in mind. It should not be a pat on the back for the winners it needs to tell the whole of the breed what the judges are finding and how they feel about it.

Do understand that some judges, who may be a very good judge of dogs, may not able to put their thoughts and findings on paper.
Also understand how disheartening it is to find after you have laboured to put your findings on paper then someone you don't know and who does not check their work with you sets about a re-write before publishing.

Don't think we should adopt the continental system of a vocal critique unless it is also printed in full, do you?

How do we help those judges who find it difficult to write but whose services we otherwise appreciate?

As this lack of critiques applies to both Open and Championship shows, should the assessment made of Championship show judges include the speed and substance of their critique?

Would it be possible to have some sort of form for judges who find it difficult to fill in, to act as an aid to the published critique?

Do know that there have been seminars to help with the critique writing but as I have not attended - have you, do they help?

Have recently taken a breed assessment and part of this was that a critique had to be submitted to the assessment panel - is this common?

Should breed clubs ask those who are placed on a club judging list to submit to the club their critique for the first three shows, would this get those on the C list into the habit do your think?

Look forward to your comments and suggestions, we all know it is not satisfactory at the moment so just how can it be improved?

hi Nova, I am only a newcomer so please take my comments as such. I recently attended a breed specific seminar, part of which involved assessing and placing four dogs and writing a critique for each--very nerve-racking but really glad I did it. I have to say that part of my work involves critiquing anyway so I am used to capturing maximum detail in minimum words, but it's very different when you've got a couple of minutes to 'fix' the pictures in your brain. We were supplied with a template for our notes with the following prompts: head, front assembly, body and coat, topline, rear quarters, tail, feet and fit for function. Even so it was not easy.

I understand that judges want to identify the strengths of individual dogs, but the preamble many judges use to highlight their concerns for the breed based on the day's exhibits is a chance to set out any negatives and put them into perspective. I notice not everyone does this (or at least it doesn't make it into print)--to me this section should be essential. It would be great if critiques could be standardised in terms of placings (e.g. the first 2, or even first 3 dogs), since it seems a bit arbitrary at times.Sending a copy to the breed club secretary would be good too--at least that way if it fails to make OD or DW (or if exhibitors aren't able to afford subscriptions) they can still see them.

I think the speed of critique writing is not so much an issue since once you're home you can take time to string together your thoughts in the most efficient way. Setting a deadline for receipt of critiques within the judge's contract might be useful and in any other job you would expect deliverables to be attached to a deadline.

In my opinion a written critique is essential--I am sad enough to save any I can find for my boys.

You could do what is done in cats and various other animals, have a comment sheet where certain points have to be commented on -makes it easier to not forget anything.

You could do what is done in cats and various other animals, have a comment sheet where certain points have to be commented on -makes it easier to not forget anything.
Quote selected text

That is the sort of thing I was thinking of when I suggested some sort of form.

I do think that we have all had a good moan over the years and nothing changes perhaps it is time to come up with some workable ideas. Yes, the KC could produce a form on which you make the relevant observation you would still need to add you own comments but such a form would act as an aid to memory.

I don't know if this would be feasible in dog showing or not but in dressage tests there are writers who jot down the judges comments as they go.  Is there any way that the critiques could be written at the time - dictated by the judge for the writer and these could be given out at the end of the show.  You often wait around half hour to an hour at horse shows for your score sheet.

Having only attended a handful of shows I don't know if this would be possible or not or whether it would just slow everything down too much.  I also really appreciate the huge amount of time some judges spend writing beautiful critiques and this may result in them being cut down.

Would it be possible to get the critiques done on the day - maybe a place where judges could sit and type them up?

I just feel that my £25 entry fee that rarely even wins you a rosette these days and often just gives you a blank card for you to write your own win onto should at least get me feedback if I win and I shouldn't have to pay to read it.

Maybe the shows could publish them on their own websites with the results?

Other options could be a short feedback given to you on the day - bullet points with a longer critique published written later.

I'm not sure if any of these ideas would work but I would love to know what those of you here who regularly, show, steward, judge and help organise shows think

Think the main problem with writing as you judge would be that a judge at a championship show may have a dozen or more classes with over 10 per class and that is one hell of a lot of writing and would no doubt need someone with short hand. This sort of system is used in Europe but they do not have the sort of entries we get. Imagine having to write the judges opinion on 200 or so dogs.

Think a short appraisal on the day for every exhibit would be wonderful and that could be followed by the judges in-depth critique on the first 3 with general thoughts afterwards would be the ideal but I don't think it practical.

A room set aside for critique writing may help and indeed some do write their critiques in the ring or shortly after over a coffee but most l think require a little thinking time.

> would no doubt need someone with short hand.

Or a dictaphone :)

I use a Dictaphone but even to make a vocal comment on up to 200 dogs would take a lot of time, time perhaps that is not available and then it would have to be transcribed.

Nova, just reading this very quickly.  I'm already disgruntled re. not receiving critiques, but that's a different matter.

Can you pls clarify what is unacceptable re. current critiques for the dummies like me who are not paying attention!!! :-)  I haven't received enough to be able to comment, but have read lots... :-)

Can you pls clarify what is unacceptable re. current critiques

Well I would say that they don't appear at all or they are pruned to the extent that they do not say what was intended.

What do other think is the main problems with the present way critiques are presented or not as the case may be.

There seems to be loads of complaints so I would say there is a problem but my idea of what that problem is may not be the same as others which is why I started the thread.

Quick reply as I'm getting ready for a show - tails to be trimmed! 

Quality of critique aside, is there some way of disseminating the critiques to their rightful 'owners' by post/email in their unedited entirety - not sure if this would be the judge or show sec.  LOATHE as I am to say this, I would be prepared to pay for having a copy if this guaranteed it. (entire copy to be sent to dog papers as usual to be published/edited as they want)

I'm pretty sure if critiques-for-money came into play we'd get our critiques quick smart! but HECK , that doesn't half stick in your throat doesn't it.

It would in mine as the quality and usefulness of critique is many and varied from the one when you wonder if the judge was actually there to the most helpful thing you have yet heard.

200 dogs?
If there's 6 or so classes in each breed and 2 sexes so isn't that more like 24 critiques to write for 1st & 2nd place?  I appreciate lots of judges will judge multiple breeds in a day too so this could mean maybe 50/60 critiques in a day.  With writers helping then maybe this will be do-able.

Really silly question now - do judges get paid? or get expenses?  Maybe they should receive these on submission of their critiques to the show secretary - these could be posted on show societies website?

Susie the suggestion was that all would get a written critique at the venue as is normal at some horse events. In which case it would be all entries but if it is just the first three that would be a good idea although I would think the exhibitor would have to pay with increased entry fees.

Run of the mill judges at Championship shows do get modest expenses, at open show it is usually on a honorary basis except in exceptional circumstances when help toward travel may be offered or extracted. Can't say what the semi professional judges get - the ones who seem to be at nearly every championship show and do the groups and BIS as I have no way of knowing being on a much different level.

I must admit I've been thinking about this. I know in my breed there are certain judges that don't seem to do critiques.  I did think of setting up a FB page for judges to put critiques on for just my breed, but don't know what the "legal" issues would be.  Would the KC and the dog papers be unhappy with this?

Don't think so, the author owns the copyright of their work so the KC nor the show society should not have any rights over it at all.

Since I asked for your thoughts I have been thinking about it myself and have come to the conclusion that perhaps there is only one way to improve the present situation.

The KC tells the breed clubs that they should advise those judges on their judging lists that they must be sent a critique within a month (or have a good reason for late delivery) every time they judge the breed. Any judge not complying would be removed from the list the following year.

This would be of help to the Breed Club in other ways because they would be aware of judges who over judge and those who are not getting appointments at all. It would then be possible for the breed clubs to publish the critiques on their web sites or to supply to a member on receipt of a SAE.

The only judges not to be effected by this would be those who tack on the odd breed classes although they have no interest in that breed and are not even on the breed clubs C lists. Perhaps the KC should make a rule that all judges must be on the list of the breed club of the breed they are judging and that would close that loop hole.

> Perhaps the KC should make a rule that all judges must be on the list of the breed club of the breed they are judging

That sounds a good idea but it can be very difficult trying to book judges for Open shows and you can end up having to compromise. Especially as some societies like to keep the free lunches to a minimum and so encourage judges to do a few breeds. That's not necessarily a criticism of the show societies - some of them are really strapped for cash these days. But some do look as if they haven't really tried very hard.

Also some breed clubs don't keep their lists up to date, and even if they do, lots of them don't publish their lists. The lists may also vary from club to club within the same breed, and have different criteria set by the individual clubs.

But I agree the KC could do more to help standardise things.

> Perhaps the KC should make a rule that all judges must be on the list of the breed club of the breed they are judging

I, and I know of others too, who are of the opinion that someone should judge the breed 2, 3 or more times, depending on the amount of classes, before requesting to go onto a C list.

As the entries at UK shows are too big to make critiques given to handler for every dog feasible, It could be done for the first two as is now.

The judge would have a duplicate/Triplicate standardised Critique pad, top copy is given to the exhibitor, second copy to the Society and the last kept by judge to do their Dog paper critique. 

What would appear in the paper would be more of an expansion on the current preamble that is more useful  to breeders and exhibitors pointing out the strengths, weaknesses and  overall state of the breed based on that entry.

The exhibitor would have the judges opinion, to keep to themselves or share as they see fit.  This would mean the judge could be more forthright, as exhibitors would be happy for a more critical/honest opinion in private than they would be seen published.

Along with grading of all exhibits, those not placed or lower than 2nd would still have an idea of the judges opinion of their dogs quality

I really like your suggestions Nova (although I'm a total newbie!).  I personally like to read critiques of as many dogs as I can (especially the ones for the dogs I particularly like or written by judges I really admire), so the idea of them being private between exhibitor, judge and society would not be my ideal.  I do worry that the breed clubs wouldn't be able to cope with publishing them all on their websites (certainly in our breed their website are infrequently updated), but I like the idea.  I would also like their to be less of a taboo around writing criticisms in critiques.  As a newcomer, by far the most useful critique for me was the one where the judge pointed out my dog was 'lacking maturity' for the class in which I'd entered him and 'in poor coat'.  I've since been more careful about which classes I enter, and honestly hadn't realised how bad his coat was until she stated the obvious :-) 

The judge would have a duplicate/Triplicate standardised Critique pad, top copy is given to the exhibitor, second copy to the Society and the last kept by judge to do their Dog paper critique. 

This would be great except that it would end my judging career - the reason I use an Dictaphone type instrument is because I can't hold and guide a pen for very long, to say nothing of my inability to spell or write legibly even on a good day. If each judge was assigned a scribe that would be fine but it would no doubt put up the costs.

Yes on the continent they do have a scribe, but the steward could do this while the judge dictates.

it can be very difficult trying to book judges for Open shows

This is only too true but if a judge is going to take on a breed surely they can be bothered to show an interest in that breed perhaps attend a breed seminar or at least a breed club show.

___________________________________________________________________________

Someone else said that people should judge 2 or 3 times before asking to go on a breed club C list, why should those people who are at those shows be given a judge who up till then has shown no interest in the breed.

Would not mind if the breed club insists on the attendance at a breed seminar providing the Breed club are prepared to provide them.

If judges were required to send critiques to breed clubs as well as the dog press and only members could access these in full online it might boost membership numbers for the breed clubs, too.

My view is that if you are offered a judging appointment, people will be paying for the privilege of hearing your opinion, and there shouldn't be any question about coming up with the critiques. If you accept an appointment you commit to writing critiques up, and if you don't have the time it should mean you are too busy to accept all those appointments.

If you accept an appointment you commit to writing critiques up,

Unfortunately those are the rules now - equally unfortunately they don't seem to work.

Unfortunately those are the rules now - equally unfortunately they don't seem to work

If the rules don't work it is because there are either insufficient or no sanctions applied. If no critiques are sent in (without a good reason as to why) sanctions could range from loss of expenses to removal from the judging lists in repeated cases.

> Someone else said that people should judge 2 or 3 times before asking to go on a breed club C list, why should those people who are at those shows be given a judge who up till then has shown no interest in the breed.
>
>

That was me.

I have judged breed clases within the Hound group, I am not on any lists, other than my own breed. Does it mean I am not interested in a breed just because I am not on lists & I have been to a few breed seminars of hounds. Does that make me(or others in a similar situation) a bad judge or not interested in a breed for this reason? I can say in my own case, that is not the case, one can take interest in a breed just not quite to such a degree as a specialist.

I do have to say though, that if you are requesting to award CC's, that one should have been to a breed seminar for the breed...not the case though for one judge who did get passed by the way(against breed council rejection!!)

If the rules don't work

Well judging by the number of complaints it is not working, why, well that is what I would like to know. Is it that more judges than one would think are simply unable to write a critique, do some judges take on so much that they don't have the time or may be even that the judge simply does not know why they placed the way they did so they are unable to say what was good or not about a particular exhibit.

Why is it not enforced, again tell me why, is it because it is not reported, because it is impossible to prove under present rules, or plain lack of action on the part of all concerned.

Is it because of the length of time between the show and the appearance or not of the critique, have the exhibitors lost interest by then and one last thing how about the quality of some critiques you know the sort where each class is almost a repeat of the one before and when your animal is described you don't recognise it.

> it can be very difficult trying to book judges for Open shows
>
> This is only too true but if a judge is going to take on a breed surely they can be bothered to show an interest in that breed perhaps attend a breed seminar or at least a breed club show.

I quite agree, however some breeds are better than others about scheduling regular seminars. I think if the breed clubs don't have a judges development programme in hand then they are on shaky ground if they try to insist on attendance at seminars.

Does that make me(or others in a similar situation) a bad judge or not interested in a breed for this reason?

Well we don't know do we, if you are interested what is the problem with asking to be placed on the breed club lists and showing your face around one or two breed club judging rings. I am sure most judges who do judge breeds are interested but I can't see the objection to going on a breed club list if that makes sorting out the problem of critique writing easier

I didn't realise you could ask to go onto a breed judging list without having some practical experience of the breed, beyond sitting a paper on the breed standard and assessing dogs in a test environment?

If you are judging under a certain number of classes, 3 for most breeds, 5 for the very popular ones, you don't even have to been to a dog show before or even owned at dog. My feeling are that if you are interested in a breed you will study that breed for a while and then ask to go on the C list, you don't have to have been to a seminar and no exams are needed.

In practice, of course, most people do have an interest in the breeds they judge but even I have been asked if I would do a couple of extra breeds to help out but I have always said no, I feel you owe it to the exhibitors to have shown some interest in the breed over and above being in the same group. Again given notice most experienced judges would be able to check out the standard and a couple of books and do a good job of judging but the exhibitors have no way of know that.

So if you have an interest in judging a particular breed ask, they will either offer you their support and put you no their list or ask you to attend a seminar first. Personally I would want to do at least one seminar before I asked to be put on the C list but it is not always easy to find a seminar in an area you can afford to reach.

f you are judging under a certain number of classes, 3 for most breeds, 5 for the very popular ones, you don't even have to been to a dog show before or even owned at dog.

That's incredible--I'm not doubting you for a minute, Nova, I just can't get round how anyone would have the front to stand in front of knowledgeable breeders and exhibitors to be able to place their dogs. I've had my breed for four years, next year I will be starting as a second steward I hope, I have passed my breed specific exam and hands on assessment and although I think can spot a good dog in my breed when I see it, I want a lot more experience  before I apply to go on the C list even though technically I can.

> If you are judging under a certain number of classes, 3 for most breeds, 5 for the very popular ones, you don't even have to been to a dog show before or even owned at dog.

The KC minimum requirements for your 1st appointment are..Ideally at least 5 years of exhibiting in your own breed. Success as a breeder or exhibitor

I've exhibited for nearly 10 years and have owned a CC winner and an open show BOB winner, but I'd never consider myself a competent judge. It's a scary thought that someone can judge without any real idea what they're doing!

> The KC minimum requirements for your 1st appointment are..Ideally at least 5 years of exhibiting in your own breed. Success as a breeder or exhibitor

Is that for Open shows, as I am pretty sure people have been judging with less than 5 years in dogs.

>> The KC minimum requirements for your 1st appointment are..Ideally at least 5 years of exhibiting in your own breed. Success as a breeder or exhibitor
> Is that for Open shows, as I am pretty sure people have been judging with less than 5 years in dogs.

It was on some paperwork I was given over 8 years for one of the KC Seminars but I also looked on KC website & yes it was for open & limited shows.

Think the word of note here is Ideally Of course in the general run of things people are not judging anything or everything with no experience, most will fulfil that criteria with no trouble but may not know the breed they are judging except in passing.

Think there is more problem with people who have loads of experience but are just collecting breeds for there CV. Would have no problem with a person judging who have not owned dogs for 5 years, how many Junior handlers will accept a judging appointment when they probably do not own their own dog at all and most make good judges.

Come to think of it although our judging contract asks what list they are on if any we do not ask how long the prospective judge has owned a dog or how successful they have been as breeders or exhibitors and I have never had one from an open show that did.