NHC competition - can't register, server slammed?

jeffjm said:

The BJCP study materials - except for the beer doctoring kit - are freely available. Anyone can download them. The problem is that exam sites are booked years in advance, have limited seats, and fill quickly. Another capacity vs. demand issue.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is it. I think there's an Old Guard that doesn't want an influx of new people that will threaten the status quo. The artificial limitations on the number of BJCP judges is a perfect way to do it since you can't move the AHA without having the judge endorsement attached.

If you truly wanted to find a beer and say "this is the best beer in America" you'd need a much larger sample than the AHA has allowed.

highgravitybacon said:

I don't think that is it. I think there's an Old Guard that doesn't want an influx of new people that will threaten the status quo. The artificial limitations on the number of BJCP judges is a perfect way to do it since you can't move the AHA without having the judge endorsement attached.

If you truly wanted to find a beer and say "this is the best beer in America" you'd need a much larger sample than the AHA has allowed.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's it all. The BJCP has really streamlined the exam process to include the online exam and the tasting exam. The online exam weeds out those who need additional studying and preparation so that they don't take up slots in the tasting exam that would go to someone would who would pass the tasting exam.

I agree that is frustrating that the demand for the tasting exam is not meeting the current availability of seats. However, if you want to be a judge and not just complain about the organization, I would find where the exam is offered near you and get in touch with the exam director. You would be surprised how often people in those slots will drop out at the last minute. That's how I was able to get my exam in last year.

As for "old guard vs new guard" - I have no idea what you're talking about.

Chriso said:

DUDE, exactly!! I so, so want to take the training course but I have no time or money to consider driving some 4-8 hours away just to do it. Should take steps to make it *easier* and more available, not harder and much more scarce.

Yes, that means more people and spending more money on the program - don't you think the increase in participants would offset that cost???

Click to expand...

I did not take any training course, as I live quite literally in the middle of nowhere. It's easier, probably, to pass with a high score with some sensory training but certainly not necessary. I did acceptably well on my first tasting exam, without ANY training (except home studying!) and without ever sampling some beer styles that can't be found in my area.

highgravitybacon said:

I don't think that is it. I think there's an Old Guard that doesn't want an influx of new people that will threaten the status quo. The artificial limitations on the number of BJCP judges is a perfect way to do it since you can't move the AHA without having the judge endorsement attached.

If you truly wanted to find a beer and say "this is the best beer in America" you'd need a much larger sample than the AHA has allowed.

Click to expand...

No way. More judges are needed, and that's why they've tried to streamline the process to get more judges. The problem is that the tasting exam is quite extensive, and it takes a lot of time and hard work for the grading- that's the reason for the lack of seats for the tasting portion of the exam.

highgravitybacon said:

I don't think that is it. I think there's an Old Guard that doesn't want an influx of new people that will threaten the status quo. The artificial limitations on the number of BJCP judges is a perfect way to do it since you can't move the AHA without having the judge endorsement attached.

If you truly wanted to find a beer and say "this is the best beer in America" you'd need a much larger sample than the AHA has allowed.

Click to expand...

BJCP is a completely different organization from AHA. I know some senior BJCP folks who don't even like the AHA.

This whole "status quo" thing makes no sense. There are approximately 700 new BJCP judges every year. The limitation is that the exam is difficult and time-consuming to grade, and there are relatively few people qualified to proctor and grade them compared to the number of people who want to take the exam.

Somehow we went from discussing NHC registration to discussing the logistical difficulties of becoming BJCP certified. I accept at least partial responsibilty for the digression

Trying to get us back on track:

What if only the first and second place beers from each category in round one advanced? That would remove 1/3 of the entries advancing, which means there would be room in the finals for 1/3 more judging centers, assuming a) the registration system could keep up, and b) sufficient judges could be found to support the additional regions.

And yes, I suggested this on the AHA forum too!

jeffjm said:

Somehow we went from discussing NHC registration to discussing the logistical difficulties of becoming BJCP certified. I accept at least partial responsibilty for the digression

Trying to get us back on track:

What if only the first and second place beers from each category in round one advanced? That would remove 1/3 of the entries advancing, which means there would be room in the finals for 1/3 more judging centers, assuming a) the registration system could keep up, and b) sufficient judges could be found to support the additional regions.

And yes, I suggested this on the AHA forum too!

Click to expand...

The finals doesn't seem to be the problem- even if they lower the amount of beers advancing, it doesn't stop the original entries.

The finals are a bottleneck that makes it difficult to add more first round regions. Each region sends at present 84 beers forward, meaning this year there's over 900 entries to be judged in one day at the conference. Advancing 56 instead of 84 per region allows a greater number of first round regions without adding additional judging load in June - assuming the extra first round regions can find judges, of course.

Going back to the BJCP judging issue for just a second.....There is obviously a bottleneck getting judges certified. I am going through the process right now and am a little amazed at how long it takes and how involved it is. The funny thing is that I have yet to hear of a competition that turns away judges, at least in the first round. My county fair homebrew comp always begs people to be judges and accepts anyone over the age of 21....and that is a BJCP "certified" competition. Now getting back to the NHC....I don't think the "right" answer of having more judges and first round sites will happen for years and years. The demand is there but it is going to take some time for the infrastructure (judges and organizers) to keep up.

So, looks like there are still some spots open in some regions. Anybody else get the email? Registration opens up on Monday at Noon (Pacific) for the remaining spots.

I also got it:

There are 450 total entry spots remaining in five competition judge centers. The AHA will re-open registration for these remaining spots on Monday, March 11. Not all judge centers have remaining entry spots; some are already at capacity. Please note: per the existing competition rules and regulations, participants with entries in a region that has reached capacity will not be able to add entries in a different region.

Entry registration re-opens at 3:00 pm EDT/2:00 pm CDT/1:00 pm MDT/12:00 pm PDT on Monday, March 11.
Entry registration will remain open until capacity is reached for all judge centers, or until the originally-scheduled close of registration at 2:00 pm EDT/1:00 pm CDT/12:00 pm MDT/11:00 am PDT on March 15, 2013.
If you already have entries in a judge center that has not reached its entry capacity, you may submit additional entries (up to the competition limit of 15) in that region only.
If you already have entries in a judge center that is full, you will not be able to submit additional entries.
The original shipping information and deadlines remain in effect.

I bailed on it. got my refunds and figure someone else needed the spot more than I did

I'm too shiny new and wasn't really happy with what I was thinking about entering

I figure I'll endure the bigger headaches that await us next year

Barnesie said:

The concept of "qualifying" for the NHC fundamentally changes what the competition is at the core.

Click to expand...

Well, the NHC already does have a qualifying round due to the realization that the event judged at the conference doesn't have enough spots for all interested. Adding a second qualifying criteria/step does not change the fundamental at all.

Barnesie said:

As it stands, a brewer can brew one batch of beer in a vacuum, pay $12 and win a gold medal.

Click to expand...

..after qualifying in the first round....

Barnesie said:

Fixing the technology means guaranteeing a web solution that provides equal access to the limited number of slots that exist.
...
Sorry for the rant, but it really offends me when people take something that is such a plebeian and inclusive affair and want to turn it into something elitist and exclusive.

Click to expand...

It looks like flawed logic to me. What you're saying is that people with the fastest trigger fingers to eat up the available spots have a right to have more entries than someone who clicks or types slower.

In a contest were quality is the only logical criteria to judge the entry, why would you want to have tech savvy people have the upper hand? They had technology problems for sure, but they were caused by policy problems and demand. Fixing the server isn't going to fix anything.


If anything would have to be *asterisked for the NHC, it would start this year with the Ninkasi and it would state that previous year's Ninkasi winners had an advantage in that they could send as many entries as they wanted to. Therefore, the Ninkasi is already stunted by policy (15 limit) and impracticality of all true contenders having a full show in the first round.

Get your NHC entries, here. Ice cold NHC entries here.

I have a log-in for a region that hasn't filled yet and haven't used my god given right to 15 entries. 10 minutes until it re-opens for entry. Any one wanna be a co-brewer with me?

I kid, of course...

Sweet. Got one more entry into Kansas City (despite there not being an "add entry" button for several minutes), and then this while trying to pay:

parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_STRING

Click to expand...

EDIT, and now it's full.

EDIT2, now I'm paid, but it's entry #772.

I got one more for Tulsa. Thinking if I should enter a sour or the mead I got logged in at the momemtn. I'll decide tonight before I pay. idk which though

I got one entry for Tulsa. That was crazy! I was entry 678, they started with 636 entries. While I was tryying to pay it came up with the notice that registration was full. I guess since I was complete all but paying, mine went through. It shows that I'm paid and registered!

Filled up in like 13 minutes!

Bobby_M said:

It looks like flawed logic to me. What you're saying is that people with the fastest trigger fingers to eat up the available spots have a right to have more entries than someone who clicks or types slower.

In a contest were quality is the only logical criteria to judge the entry, why would you want to have tech savvy people have the upper hand? They had technology problems for sure, but they were caused by policy problems and demand. Fixing the server isn't going to fix anything.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to belabor a point, I just don't think I always explain myself very well.

As much as it sucks for people who didn't get in due to bad/slow internet, the fact that one person got in and another didn't is an impartial, random and inherrently fair outcome (so long as everyone has equal access to the same limited resource).

What was unfair in my eyes was that the technology failed in different ways for almost every person that wanted to be in the contest. This resulted in hugely unequal access. Some people stopped trying with the idea that they'd enter later and were then shut-out completely. That uncertainty and variability from person to person was unfair.

It is my personal belief that if the technology was able to support the concurrant connections and sold out in 1.5 minutes, then that's just supply and demand. Fair and square.

I think the problem I have with a lot of opinions here is that there seems to be this notion that some brewers are inherrently more deserving of entry than others and I really don't understand that way of thinking.

Getting into this hobby was fun because it was so inclusive, so egalitarian and supportive. It's a shame that the main reaction to the massive demand for this contest is a desire to figure out new and innovative ways to exlude people from participating. That might not be a fair characterization, and it's certainly not targeted at anyone at all, it's just my gut reaction to parts of this debate.

Just saw that Bobby's post was directed/in response to me so I thought I'd continue to belabor my inane points for a moment. I'll check back out of the conversation since I'm probably not adding much anyway.

AZ_IPA said:

Sweet. Got one more entry into Kansas City (despite there not being an "add entry" button for several minutes),

Click to expand...

i still don't have this button. i was migrated from OH, so maybe that's the problem.

i'm not too bothered. i was contemplating adding one more, but not too worried that i can't.

At this point, I think if the AHA is going to run a contest where they want everyone to have a chance, but have limited number of slots compared to the number that want to enter, then the entries should be completely random. Everyone registers and enters every beer they want, then the entries are doled out randomly by lottery. Maybe they still put a cap on the number you can enter so you can't flood it with say 100 entries just to get a beer in. Or the entries can't be changed once entered, so say you enter a dry stout, after the entries are doled out if you win a spot then you have to enter that dry stout. That would prevent ghost entries from occuring just to get extra spots with the thinking you can change it later.

Also, based on something like that they may have to rethink how Ninkasi is awarded, and maybe base Ninkasi on points from other sanctioned contests throughout the year.

machfive55 said:

Or the entries can't be changed once entered, so say you enter a dry stout, after the entries are doled out if you win a spot then you have to enter that dry stout. That would prevent ghost entries from occuring just to get extra spots with the thinking you can change it later.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think you should be able to chance entries once you enter.

That would probably slow down a lot of the "hurry up and enter - I don't know what I'm entering yet, but I'll just enter something and eventually change it to what I want to enter."

If you don't know if your entry is worth entering when you enter, then you probably shouldn't enter it.

I would think those entering NHC are doing so more for the chance to win than just for some BJCP feedback (which you can get at local BJCP comps that are a lot cheaper to enter).

I wonder how many people are saying "my beer tastes like **** - I wonder why? I know, I'll spend $12 plus a bunch in shipping costs to see why."

Barnesie said:

As much as it sucks for people who didn't get in due to bad/slow internet, the fact that one person got in and another didn't is an impartial, random and inherrently fair outcome (so long as everyone has equal access to the same limited resource).

Click to expand...

Well, as long as you consider it fair that people who were at work and don't have access to a computer, or people who were flying at the time, or any other legitimate reason that one might not have access to a computer at a specific time in the middle of a work day, then yes, it was inherently fair.

This has to be one of the funniest whambulance threads of all time.

TNGabe said:

This has to be one of the funniest whambulance threads of all time.

Click to expand...

Did you see the story about the outrage when Taco Bell didn't have their cool ranch dorito taco on the day they advertised that they'd have it?

AZ_IPA said:

Sweet. Got one more entry into Kansas City (despite there not being an "add entry" button for several minutes), and then this while trying to pay:





EDIT, and now it's full.

EDIT2, now I'm paid, but it's entry #772.

Click to expand...

Sorry man, but are you really surprised?

Darwin18 said:

Sorry man, but are you really surprised?

Click to expand...

Not at all, but the sick twisted side of me had to test the system. Again.

EDIT: ha...

The limit of seven hundred and twenty eight (728) entries has been reached.

Click to expand...

Isn't 728 a nice round number?

BrewKnurd said:

Well, as long as you consider it fair that people who were at work and don't have access to a computer, or people who were flying at the time, or any other legitimate reason that one might not have access to a computer at a specific time in the middle of a work day, then yes, it was inherently fair.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to be flippant, but I do consider that completely fair.

People's individual life complications aren't impactful in terms of the greater population in a way that they should be accounted for and mitigated. If the contest entry date is announced MONTHS in advance and you can't get out of work, can't reach other arrangements, or can't get someone to enter for you, then I really feel for you on a personal level - but I don't believe you deserve any sort of special treatment.

Barnesie said:

I don't mean to be flippant, but I do consider that completely fair.

People's individual life complications aren't impactful in terms of the greater population in a way that they should be accounted for and mitigated. If the contest entry date is announced MONTHS in advance and you can't get out of work, can't reach other arrangements, or can't get someone to enter for you, then I really feel for you on a personal level - but I don't believe you deserve any sort of special treatment.

Click to expand...

That's fine, I just think the fact that you think excluding people from a brewing competition based on their schedule is more fair than excluding them because, ya know, their beer isn't good enough (which is the people you would weed out with additional qualifying rounds), is fascinating.

One of them is actually related to the quality being measured by the NHC (ability to brew a good beer), and therefore seems a reasonable basis on which to exclude people, and the other (personal schedule) is not.

Put another way, current system requires that some people go more out of their way to get in than others. An additional qualifying round puts everyone on the same footing, everyone has to do the same thing to get in. Apparently we disagree about which one of those is more fair. One where everyone has to put forth the same amount of work and effort, and one where that is, by your admission, not the case.

AZ_IPA said:

Yeah, I don't think you should be able to change entries once you enter.

That would probably slow down a lot of the "hurry up and enter - I don't know what I'm entering yet, but I'll just enter something and eventually change it to what I want to enter."

Click to expand...

Sorry, but don't agree with this at all. There are plenty of styles that are best fresh and it's nice to have the option to switch things up after securing spots.

I have a wood aged IPA and an American Wheat that I'm currently flip-flopping on. Neither one is bottled yet. The IPA made it to the second round last year, but there got hammered for not enough hop character. The wood mellows out the hops over time even more so than a straight IPA. Time is not friendly to this beer. The wheat is a recipe that made it to the second round two years ago. My plan is to bottle early next week, give them a few day to settle and then make the decision of which one goes.

My suggestion would be to limit it to five or six unspecified beers, but let you decide which of your beers will have the best chance right up to the last minute.

I couldn't enter any beers today, because of a meeting, but my wife came through for me and got one into Tulsa, so I'm stoked. Next year, I'll be better prepared. Clearly, you can't count on entering your beers in 3-4 hours after the show starts. I think you've just got to enlist someone else to do it for you if you can't get the time off.

AnOldUR said:

Sorry, but don't agree with this at all. There are plenty of styles that are best fresh and it's nice to have the option to switch things up after securing spots.

I have a wood aged IPA and an American Wheat that I'm currently flip-flopping on. Neither one is bottled yet. The IPA made it to the second round last year, but there got hammered for not enough hop character. The wood mellows out the hops over time even more so than a straight IPA. Time is not friendly to this beer. The wheat is a recipe that made it to the second round two years ago. My plan is to bottle early next week, give them a few day to settle and then make the decision of which one goes.

My suggestion would be to limit it to five or six unspecified beers, but let you decide which of your beers will have the best chance right up to the last minute.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. They allow you to re-brew for the final round, which works specifically for quick turn around beers that don't age well. Not so much for big beers or meads.

And, you really should know ahead of time if a beer is worth entering. Hell, I'm brewing a pale ale right now that I'll be entering. I've made it many times, so I know it is worth an entry.

With fresh, young beers, there's no time anyway to wait and see if it is good enough to enter.

AZ_IPA said:

Hell, I'm brewing a pale ale right now that I'll be entering. I've made it many times, so I know it is worth an entry.

With fresh, young beers, there's no time anyway to wait and see if it is good enough to enter.

Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that for the first round if you only have, say one spot. Wouldn't it be nice to brew several beers and make the decision which one goes when they're all done. It shouldn't be a matter of which one is "good enough." At NHC level you better know how to make good beer. It's about which one has the best chance at doing well.

I'd rather see a system where you secure positions in the first round by your results in other BJCP competitions. What you enter should be up to you.

But I'd also like to see a lottery for a portion of those entries, so that everyone has a shot at getting in.

Any system that depends on you being in front of your computer at a certain moment, within a very short time frame is total BS.

AZ_IPA said:

I don't agree. They allow you to re-brew for the final round, which works specifically for quick turn around beers that don't age well. Not so much for big beers or meads.

And, you really should know ahead of time if a beer is worth entering. Hell, I'm brewing a pale ale right now that I'll be entering. I've made it many times, so I know it is worth an entry.

With fresh, young beers, there's no time anyway to wait and see if it is good enough to enter.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

I submitted three entries to a local BJCP competition this weekend. Two of the beers, a porter and a dortmunder export, both scored a 34. Unfortunately I think that's the end of the road for the porter and I won't waste my time submitting it to NHC. I have a Vienna lager on tap that should do better. The dortmunder I entered was young and has since been lagering/carbing for another 3+ weeks and has improved, so I think I'll stick with my plan on entering it into NHC. The third beer, a fruit beer, I had high hopes for and it certainly exceeded my expectations for the competition.

Darwin18 said:

Agreed.

I submitted three entries to a local BJCP competition this weekend. Two of the beers, a porter and a dortmunder export, both scored a 34. Unfortunately I think that's the end of the road for the porter and I won't waste my time submitting it to NHC. I have a Vienna lager on tap that should do better. The dortmunder I entered was young and has since been lagering/carbing for another 3+ weeks and has improved, so I think I'll stick with my plan on entering it into NHC. The third beer, a fruit beer, I had high hopes for and it certainly exceeded my expectations for the competition.

Click to expand...

Also, based on the short fuse timing of the web entry game, I had significantly less of my dry stout than I thought. I could re-brew that, but it needs at least a few months time and wouldn't do well. The flexibility is very nice to have, though certainly not a requirement with proper planning.

I suppose you could have an inflexible system where you choose your beers in advance. It's easy enough for some people to plan out their brewing schedule. For those of us with real-world commitments (work, family, etc) it sometimes isn't possible to plan a brew schedule week-to-week.

AZ_IPA said:

I don't agree. They allow you to re-brew for the final round, which works specifically for quick turn around beers that don't age well. Not so much for big beers or meads.

And, you really should know ahead of time if a beer is worth entering. Hell, I'm brewing a pale ale right now that I'll be entering. I've made it many times, so I know it is worth an entry.

With fresh, young beers, there's no time anyway to wait and see if it is good enough to enter.

Click to expand...

This can be worked around. I brew a lot of lagers, and I entered a bunch. Just like ales, there is an optimal taste window, perhaps longer than for ales, but like with many ales, fresh is best. I plan to rebrew my lagers before the results of the first round are announced. If any do advance, then I'll have my lagers at the optimum of freshness for the finals. 2 extra months of aging is not bad for many lagers, but the beer won't be as good as it was at the time of the first round. I'm looking forward to the fact that I can hand deliver them - no shipping - yay! I've noticed that quite a few of the beers that place in the finals are ones that didn't have to make a long trip across the country. Traveling in a plane and then around in a truck, (all with unregulated temps) does not do great things for a beer

I'll have lots of grateful friends to help me consume all of the beer I've made for the competition

Was just looking over the numbers from the regions that have judged already. All had less than the max 750 entries--I presume those with around 715 entries had some disqualified, showed up broken, etc? The lowest was my region (7), which had 684 entries.

Where were you looking to see that info? Just curious...

Yes, could you please post a link?

Just go to the main competition page and click on each region. If they've already judged it will give the total number of entries.

That's good for me, I guess. I registered on the second day, and one entry was #722, and the other was #762 (even though the entry time was earlier, lol). I went ahead and paid for both. The site said they were ok, so I shipped both in. I figured that either the numbering scheme was out of whack, or that there would be enough no-shows to maybe get the second beer judged. Guess I'll find out in a few weeks.

My site (Zanesville) hasn't judged yet. No notice of broken entries (was told they'd notify entrants of any casualties) so hopefully all mine make it to the judging.