NHC competition - can't register, server slammed?

[Cranny04]

Actually........... the entry is not official until paid, but the spot within the 750 is reserved until you did pay and no more entries should have been accepted until the 24 hours had elapsed.

I haven't heard of anyone over or under the 750 not being able to enter their beers. From when I've read as long as you were registered you get to enter. that means people have to send their entries to a different judging center, but they still get to compete.

 

[osagedr]

First obvious step is going to be to limit entries to AHA members, or allow AHA members to pre-register.

 

[Barnesie]

I have only a very rudimentary level of experience with webhosting, but it's obvious that the AHA needs some help.

The brewingcompetition.com website appears to be hosted by "domaindiscover.com" which appears to be another dime-a-dozen budget hosting company. Judging from their website alone, I don't think I'd trust a company like that to host anything that would require thousands of individual hits a second of dynamically generated content.

The software running the brewing competition website is homebaked PHP/mysql which is generally terribly at scaling up without a lot of smart coding and server side support (which they obviously don't have). Trying to manage this volume of individual demand is not a smart thing to do with homemade php/mysql solutions.

I think they could still take this approach to register the details and manage the individual entries, but not to handle registrations. The smartest fix they could implement for next year is to hire an outside company to simply manage the registration as a single cattle-call.

This process of forcing everyone to choose a judging center ahead of time and then ramming through a single door like a bunch of fat stooges isn't working.

Why not just register "slots" en masse and then divy out the slots to the next closest judging location available based on zipcode? The process of selecting a style category and naming each entry isn't important at registration time and just puts another huge demand on a database that isn't up to the task. All they need to manage is the demand of obtaining a slot for each desired entry. The judging location, style, naming, printing of labels etc. could all be done at a leisurely pace once the hard part of managing demand is over.

but what do I know? I'm sure there a tons of people that can think of better ways to do these things.

 

[AnOldUR]

First obvious step is going to be to limit entries to AHA members, or allow AHA members to pre-register.

Seems to me that there are much bigger problems. Do you have information that there were a large amount of non AHA members trying to enter? Could be out there and I just haven't seen it.

 

[osagedr]

Seems to me that there are much bigger problems. Do you have information that there were a large amount of non AHA members trying to enter? Could be out there and I just haven't seen it.

Yes there are bigger problems but it is an easy way to increase membership, which is the goal of (almost) any organization. It likely would not solve the issue, nor did I say it would. I don't have data on non-AHA members but I saw an awful lot of references to $17 entries. Personally I believe there should be another round of qualifying; the easiest way to do it is MCAB style, but perhaps just a third round is needed.

 

[Chriso]

I'm not a member, but I did register beer. I'll worry about "side" costs like AHA membership, renewing my BYO mag (though I miss it...), etc. once I get through some more equipment upgrades, putting me in a position where I don't actively want to upgrade anything in the near future. Once I've paid off all of the new hardware, then that extraneous spending can resume.

I suspect there are a large percentage of folks like me who belong to AHA clubs but don't initiate or maintain their own self membership.

 

[mjdonnelly68]

I can appreciate how difficult it must be for the AHA to handle the growth in home brewing over the last few years.

That being said, if their mission truly is to continue to grow the hobby they need to work out the kinks in their coordination of events.

I had to jump through hoops to secure a ticket to the annual conference and I was only able to register one beer for the NHC competition (after an hour plus of frustrating attempts).

I want to be involved and supportive of the AHA, but they are making it very difficult to do so. I don't need the AHA to brew. I don't need Zymurgy to improve what I brew. If I can't count on being able to participate in AHA events, I don't see the justification for continuing my membership.

 

[PhelanKA7]

I don't need Zymurgy to improve what I brew.

I agree 100% there. I read maybe one or two interesting things in a whole issue and toss it because it really seems to cater to very green brewers. HBT remains the greatest source for learning the craft out there IMHO and is why I'm a Lifetime Supporter.

The only reason I joined the AHA was to be able to get discounts on food/drink at a local brewpub that I visit regularly and free entry into a homebrew event/competition at Upland Brewery once a year.

 

[Darwin18]

First obvious step is going to be to limit entries to AHA members, or allow AHA members to pre-register.

I'd be down for that if it were the annual "American Homebrewer's Association Competition" and not the "National Homebrew Competition".

I think the hobby has gotten so large that even a larger third round wouldn't be enough to handle the demand. I would suggest a format with a pool of BJCP competitions where 1st, 2nd, 3rd place winners who score a 35 of higher earn a "ticket" to the first round of the NHC instead of how it is now; whoever has the most stable internet connection, persistence, and luck can enter up to 15 beers while others are excluded.

 

[Denny]

As a member of the AHA Governing Committee, I can tell you that everything I've read here has been and is being considered. Some of the ideas have already been rejected and some are still under consideration. This is a major concern of the AHA and the GC. Stay tuned....and for more up to date info from the Competition Committee chair, check out the AHA forum.

 

[r2eng]

Thanks, Denny.

As a long time member, I was in a work meeting when registration opened, and by the time I tried to enter my 3 beers, it was a total cluge - the comps were completely full.

I sincerely hope the AHA can allow growth. It's a sad day when it's a "black-friday" event to attend the conference or enter a couple of beers. I am a bit disillusioned.

 

[Phunhog]

A lot of good ideas being floated but I still think the easiest solution is the best. Raise the entry fees to a point where it doesn't fill up in a single day but instead it takes a week or two. Everyone who wants to will bse able to enter. It will be self limiting in most cases. You will only send beers that are your best of the best. The biggest issue I see with qualifying rounds is what is being sent to the NHC is, in most cases, NOT what got you a medal in the qualifier. If you medal in a comp 6 months before NHC obviously it isn't going to be the same beer. Would you be forced to only send beer in the category that you qualified in? Which comps qualify as a qualifying round for NHC? Who is going to track all this on a national level? See what I mean? All of these problems can be solved as long as someone has the time and resources to do so it is just more complicated.

 

[Denny]

If you would like to see what's been discussed, as well as get ideas to and comments from Tom Schmidlin (GC comp committee chair), go to

http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=14905.0

 

[Braufessor]

A lot of good ideas being floated but I still think the easiest solution is the best. Raise the entry fees to a point where it doesn't fill up in a single day but instead it takes a week or two. Everyone who wants to will bse able to enter. It will be self limiting in most cases. You will only send beers that are your best of the best. The biggest issue I see with qualifying rounds is what is being sent to the NHC is, in most cases, NOT what got you a medal in the qualifier. If you medal in a comp 6 months before NHC obviously it isn't going to be the same beer. Would you be forced to only send beer in the category that you qualified in? Which comps qualify as a qualifying round for NHC? Who is going to track all this on a national level? See what I mean? All of these problems can be solved as long as someone has the time and resources to do so it is just more complicated.

I don't like the idea of limiting based on entry fee - People are currently excluded basically because of luck - which is wrong. But, I don't think that exclusion based on your financial situation is good either. I think if you are going to exclude people (which is basically a necessity) it is better to do it based on quality of beer brewed. Not saying there are not problems with that as well (you pointed some out) - but at least is is something that is a fair way of excluding. In this day and age of technology, keeping track of who earned "top 3 finishes" in 20 competitions across the country would not be very hard at all...... I would go so far as to say it would (apparently) be easier than having 10,000 people register for a competition at the exact same moment.
If this method were used, then yes - you would have to enter in the category you qualified in. Would not necessarily be the same batch of beer..... but then again, neither is the second round. Plus, if you knew in advance that you had a particular style qualified, you could plan your brewing to certain beers, instead of "sending what you have on hand." I don't think the NHC should really be a competition that people use "to get some feedback" - there are hundreds of competitions for that.
Your ability to enter should not depend on luck, $$, internet connection or timing - it should simply depend on your ability to brew good beer. My guess is that the Kansas City regional will be judged largely by the KCBM contest judges, the Milwaukee one will be judged by lots of the same that did Midwinter, and St. Paul will have many of the judges from Upper Mississippi Mashout...... and so on and so on...... there are 20 competitions that could be used for "top 3" entries IF that were ever an option to pursue. Not saying it is the right or best answer.... but it is feasible, and it does have some merit to it.

 

[Darwin18]

If you would like to see what's been discussed, as well as get ideas to and comments from Tom Schmidlin (GC comp committee chair), go to

http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=14905.0

Denny, great link. Thank you for posting this. What are your thoughts on improving the NHC for 2014?

 

[machfive55]

It's a radical step, but I think the AHA as a whole needs to regionalize itself. Even with the conference registration there were issues and it sold out fast so I think the AHA needs several smaller regions each with their own conference and competition.

If the AHA can't handle the size they will need to take huge steps to rectify things for its members. Let me give you a hint here...it ain't gettin' smaller. I think they need to really consider things and make some big steps that will make things better overall for their members.

 

[AnOldUR]

Your ability to enter should not depend on luck, $$, internet connection or timing - it should simply depend on your ability to brew good beer.

My opinion would be, none of the above. My guess is that the AHA would like the NHC to be all inclusive. Kind of the New York City Marathon of homebrewing. Leaders crossing the finish in around two hours, but stragglers still coming in the next day. If that is the case here's my plan.

First off, nobody gets more than five (random number *) entries in the first round. Open entries in the first round are based on a lottery system. Put your name in a hat. If you're chosen you get to enter your five in any category you choose. If you don't pay in a given amount of time or want to use all your entries, the next guy on the list is given a chance. If you've won the top three BOS in any AHA sanctioned competition with 200 or more entries in the previous calendar year, you get a pass on the lottery, but have to commit and pay a week before the open lottery.

No panic rush where everyone is trying to get in at the same time. No crashing computers system. Everyone gets an equal chance. The top brewers are given a shot to enter, assuring a quality competition.




* Five may not be enough, but 15 is clearly too many.

 

[Darwin18]

First off, nobody gets more than five (random number *) entries in the first round. Open entries in the first round are based on a lottery system. Put your name in a hat. If you're chosen you get to enter your five in any category you choose. If you don't pay in a given amount of time or want to use all your entries, the next guy on the list is given a chance.

I'm fairly certain, with the way that 2013 played out, that NHC submittals are already essentially a lottery system. People with a good internet connection, persistence, and a good deal of luck can get their entries (even the max) while others cannot even get one in. With the rate the hobby has grown over the last few years, even limiting the entries to 5 or less isn't going to slow the demand.

I like how you compared it to a well known marathon. Events like the Boston Marathon require entries to qualify. That's where I'd like to see the NHC head. The NHC isn't a competition where people are looking for feed back - there are numerous BJCP competitions for that purpose. People enter the NHC because it is THE national competition and a ribbon from it is prestigious. I say force entries to qualify for NHC through submittal into the numerous BJCP competitions throughout the year. This will eliminate the field to the best, which is what we all want, and eliminate entries that are sub-par. It would certainly add another level of prestige to the Ninkasi instead of how it is now - a bulk submittal race.

I realize this would take some effort on the part of the AHA. Tracking competitions is not always easy, however if the BJCP can do it for assigning judge points, then a paid organization like the AHA can track 1, 2, 3 place entries. Let's be honest - it's not a monumental task, especially if they update their tracking each month.

 

[Denny]

Denny, great link. Thank you for posting this. What are your thoughts on improving the NHC for 2014?

My thought is that I'm damn lucky I'm the chair of the web subcommittee and not the comp committee! Seriously, though, I try to stay out of it because people who are much more familiar with the situation than I are working on it.

 

[Denny]

I realize this would take some effort on the part of the AHA. Tracking competitions is not always easy, however if the BJCP can do it for assigning judge points, then a paid organization like the AHA can track 1, 2, 3 place entries. Let's be honest - it's not a monumental task, especially if they update their tracking each month.

Keep in mind that other than NHC, the AHA doesn't run comps. They'd need the BJCP to feed them the info.

 

[machfive55]

Here's a crazy idea. Since one of the big issues is the number of judges, why don't they create a first round with unlimited entries, but no BJCP judges. Anyone can volunteer to be the judge, so it basically come down to choice of the homebrewers (people's choice), then those entries go on to a BJCP judging round.

 

[Darwin18]

Here's a crazy idea. Since one of the big issues is the number of judges, why don't they create a first round with unlimited entries, but no BJCP judges. Anyone can volunteer to be the judge, so it basically come down to choice of the homebrewers (people's choice), then those entries go on to a BJCP judging round.

Because while some beers that may score well outside of the BJCP guidelines and get through, they'd likely score poorly in a 2nd round that goes by the BJCP guidelines. What is the point of making it through based on one standard and then being held to a second standard at the next round?

 

[weirdboy]

Here's a crazy idea. Since one of the big issues is the number of judges, why don't they create a first round with unlimited entries, but no BJCP judges. Anyone can volunteer to be the judge, so it basically come down to choice of the homebrewers (people's choice), then those entries go on to a BJCP judging round.

They already take non-BJCP judges for the first round. Typically lower-ranked or non-BJCP judges are paired with more experienced judges in any competition. It is much better to have someone who understands the style guidelines judging your flight than someone who is judging beer for the first time. Part of the reason to enter any competition, even if you don't medal, is to get useful feedback so you can improve your beer. Paying $12 to have my beer judged by some guy who doesn't know what acetaldehyde is and who writes maybe 8 words of feedback on an entire scoresheet is infuriating.

 

[Phunhog]

I don't like the idea of limiting based on entry fee - People are currently excluded basically because of luck - which is wrong. But, I don't think that exclusion based on your financial situation is good either. I think if you are going to exclude people (which is basically a necessity) it is better to do it based on quality of beer brewed. Not saying there are not problems with that as well (you pointed some out) - but at least is is something that is a fair way of excluding. In this day and age of technology, keeping track of who earned "top 3 finishes" in 20 competitions across the country would not be very hard at all...... I would go so far as to say it would (apparently) be easier than having 10,000 people register for a competition at the exact same moment.
If this method were used, then yes - you would have to enter in the category you qualified in. Would not necessarily be the same batch of beer..... but then again, neither is the second round. Plus, if you knew in advance that you had a particular style qualified, you could plan your brewing to certain beers, instead of "sending what you have on hand." I don't think the NHC should really be a competition that people use "to get some feedback" - there are hundreds of competitions for that.
Your ability to enter should not depend on luck, $$, internet connection or timing - it should simply depend on your ability to brew good beer. My guess is that the Kansas City regional will be judged largely by the KCBM contest judges, the Milwaukee one will be judged by lots of the same that did Midwinter, and St. Paul will have many of the judges from Upper Mississippi Mashout...... and so on and so on...... there are 20 competitions that could be used for "top 3" entries IF that were ever an option to pursue. Not saying it is the right or best answer.... but it is feasible, and it does have some merit to it.

I understand your point about excluding people based on financial situation but isn't that what already happens? 14 dollars per entry for an AHA member and 18 for a non member adds up pretty fast. That is why I don't think most brewers will flinch if fees went up dramatically next year. This is my first year entering the NHC mainly because I have always balked at an entry fee that is double what most other BJCP comps charge AND most brewers have to ship their beer. Why pay double the price for the same product? I will see here in a few months if entering the NHC is really worth the time and money spent.

 

[machfive55]

Did anyone manage to enter the max number of beers (15)? Or, more interestingly, what is the max number of entries anyone got in?

 

[Darwin18]

Someone back in this thread did manage to register the max amount (15).

 

[weirdboy]

Who the hell has 15 beers sitting around worth entering into the NHC? Not me, and I brew A LOT. Also, doing the math that is $180 just in entry fees.

 

[sweetcell]

Who the hell has 15 beers sitting around worth entering into the NHC? Not me, and I brew A LOT. Also, doing the math that is $180 just in entry fees.

folks who are gunning for the Ninkasi plan their brew schedules in accordance to the NHC entrance window. Mark Schoppe, the 2012 winner, entered 42 beers if i remember correctly (he said this during a BN interview).

you brew a lot. some people brew more

 

[TNGabe]

folks who are gunning for the Ninkasi plan their brew schedules in accordance to the NHC entrance window. Mark Schoppe, the 2012 winner, entered 42 beers if i remember correctly (he said this during a BN interview).

you brew a lot. some people brew more

That is pathetic.

 

[weirdboy]

42 entries?!?!

He spent $420 just in entry fees. I cannot even imagine how much he spent to pack & ship 126 bottles of beer just for round one.

 

[nukebrewer]

42 entries?!?!

He spent $420 just in entry fees. I cannot even imagine how much he spent to pack & ship 126 bottles of beer just for round one.

I thought up until this year first round was only one bottle.

 

[TNGabe]

I thought up until this year first round was only one bottle.

And now it's two, three for the second. I thought it was 2+2 til someone set me straight.

 

[weirdboy]

I thought up until this year first round was only one bottle.

You could be right. Only a case of beer!

 

[FarmerTed]

42 entries?!?!

He spent $420 just in entry fees. I cannot even imagine how much he spent to pack & ship 126 bottles of beer just for round one.

I'm pretty sure it was more like 67 entries, and only 5 made it to the finals. He said on the BN that he didn't even lager his lagers (not sure if those got to the 2nd round). His winners were an RIS and a strong scotch ale, or something like that. He could have saved a lot of dough by just sending those two.

 

[weirdboy]

WTF 67? That's rapidly approaching every style listed in the guidelines.

 

[nukebrewer]

WTF 67? That's rapidly approaching every style listed in the guidelines.

Indeed, and even at 42 it's well past absurdity. I mean if you have enough time and money to brew that much, more power to ya I guess, but all that work to only get two winners seems pretty ridiculous.

 

[AnchorBock]

What was his batch size, 1 gallon?

 

[Darwin18]

Yep - that's why I'm advocating a qualification system. Sending in 67 entries is just a way to flood the competition. It becomes a quantity versus quality event that way.

 

[weirdboy]

Yep - that's why I'm advocating a qualification system. Sending in 67 entries is just a way to flood the competition. It becomes a quantity versus quality event that way.

How? You can only enter one beer per subcategory. If he sends in 65 crappy entries and has two good ones, well...I guess that's his prerogative, but it's not going to help him win unless everyone else sends in worse beers. It is most certainly not going to help him win best of show.

 

[nukebrewer]

How? You can only enter one beer per subcategory. If he sends in 65 crappy entries and has two good ones, well...I guess that's his prerogative, but it's not going to help him win unless everyone else sends in worse beers. It is most certainly not going to help him win best of show.

Right, but you have to imagine that more than just this one guy is doing that. Even though you can only submit one entry per subcategory it still takes away an entry and an opportunity for another brewer to compete.