Change to Feedback Star Ratings

A couple of things have been brought to my attention and I thought it would be a good idea to clarify.  Firstly I have altered the Star Rating System slightly.  I have altered four stars from VERY GOOD  to GOOD, as it was felt by one club that this made more sense between COMPETENT and EXCELLENT.  Also it is clear from a response I had recently that the rules are not being read on the WPF website.  Would all those involved in feedback and on club committees PLEASE take a few minutes to read ALL the documentation on ‘Guidelines to Judges’ and ‘The Role of the Club’.  Also the paragraphs at the top of the Judges List which explains the star rating system.  There is NO rating for speakers as they are nearly always top class.  Any complaints can be emailed to me directly by clubs or presenters.

* Poor
** Below average
*** Competent
**** Good
***** Excellent

The other matter is the suggested AWARDS system rather that giving MARKS.  I am pleased to have heard that some clubs are trying out the system, but may not have understood the marking.  I stated that the marking for the end of year total could still be achieved by awarding marks in the following way:

GOLD (20), SILVER (19), BRONZE (18), HIGHLY COMMENDED (17), COMMENDED (16) and the rest 15.  The CLUB may decide the number of awards that may be given in each category, so if they want to allow more than one GOLD, SILVER, BRONZE award etc., they only have to make it clear to the judge.  It is highly likely that there would be more than one silver or bronze in any case if the standard was high on the night.

The clubs that already use this system are a pleasure to judge, and members go away remembering the critique rather than a low mark.  There is also less reason for complaints to appear about judges on the Social Media!

If there are any queries you can always contact me on

Ed Cloutman (WPF Judges and Presenters Secretary).