Gallery Ratings

FredL

Just got back (figuratively speaking) from looking at a number of trees in the Gallery. VERY interesting. In view of my rapidly improving photography technique, I think I'll submit a couple of pictures of my trees!

Now, what really piqued my interest was the idea of rating the trees. But, what I couldn't figure out was the rating system, if there is one. I don't know whether a 5 means an average tree, world wide, an average tree for an American newbie, a failure, with 7 meaning "passing", a mild compliment for the average bonsai practitioner or a gross insult for anybody.

May I propose (drumroll, here, please) a rating system:

10 - Reserved for Japanese National treasure trees. The very best Kimura trees in "Bonsai Today"

9 - World Class trees. Appropriate for "Bonsai Today" Gallery. The very best European trees.

8. Excellent Trees. Very good exhibition trees at Regional or Local Shows. Well groomed trees selling for several hundred dollars with a good overall impact, but not truly remarkable.

7. Good quality trees suitable for exhibition at local club shows.

6. Trees recognizable as Bonsai but with easily recognizable flaws or a total impact below exhibition-appropriate quality

5. Flawed bonsai a few years away from being "mature" or with serious flaws or poor overall quality

4. Trees little past the stage of being good material or with such poor overall impact as to be scarcely recognizable as being legitimate bonsai. The average dept store "Mallasai".

3. Poor quality "sticks in a pot". Trees with such serious flaws as to be best taken back to "pre-bonsai" material status and fundmentally restarted.

2. Trees not recognizable as legitimate bonsai. So seriously flawed as not being worthy of any effort to improve.

1. Seedlings, new cuttings.

With some sort of standard to judge against, I'd be willing to invest some time and effort into rating and commenting on the trees in the Gallery. This may not be the right scale to measure against, but does anybody else think we could use one?

Fred

Fred

Advertisement

RonMartin(deceased)

FredL

OK, Ron, let's not break it down. Perhaps you could tell me then, is one of your 5s good news or bad news if I send in one of my pictures? Is one of your 5s better or worse than one of my 7s? What is the lowest score you'd give any of the current thumbnails? The highest? What is the average score you give? Well, for that matter, have you taken the time to give any feedback at all?

Or is all this confidential and I don't have a need to know?

Fred

RonMartin(deceased)

Why are you so ready to jump. Calm down.
As to your questions Yes I have given some feed back. In this area not only is your assertion wrong but totally uncalled for.
Consider the ratings akin to the peoples choice award at a convention. Those that give feed back do so with their own eye. That rating is based on what the viewer thinks of the tree.
If we divided the trees as to the experience of the person that did it then we would also have to divide those that give the feed back by their experience level. Not really a smart thing to do. Way too complicated.
Not needed and probably not possible.
The system as it is now seems to be liked by those that use it. No reason to mess that up.
But if it will make you happy I promise never to give feed back on any of your thumbnails. I am not out to get you so just put your guns back in their holster.
Run off and give me a bad remark on my Reputation thing but let me have and express an opinion without worrying about you having a heart attack.

pootsie

Ahh, the eternal dilemma of the pollster. Coming up next, pootsie explains the electoral college

pootsie

__________________
p.s. My cat is a bonsaiTALK Master.
Columbus Bonsai Society

breefe

How the west was won!

Edit: Since Will H. Missed it...I'll explain...The electoral college can sometimes give the "win" to the guy that simply went to the right states that have the most points by population. How the west was won is a joke pertaining to the last election where Bush got the high point states because he wanted the "win" so badly and campaigned basically only those states. West=USA in this joke...

Randall...

__________________
"His government....I think he was talking about two sock puppets and a beanie baby."

Will_Heath

breefe,

I am used to your totally left field remarks that have absolutely nothing to do with the current discussions, but this one wins the prize. Congratulations, on this achievement!

On topic:
I also feel that the current rating system is fine. In fact it is set up now based on experience. It is my experience that lets me decide what rating the tree deserves. People with less experience may give a higher rating than I and people with more may give a lower rating. i think it all balances out in the end.


Will

FredL

Ron ,I have to admit, you're really at your best when you think you've seen an opportunity to be patronizing. Calm down, huh.

Look Ron, you're just missing my point. Not that I see any real hope that restating it will do any good, but here goes anyway.

What I'm trying to get across is that the current rating system is very unclear as to what it means. It seems to have lead to a condition that is akin to what is called "Grade Inflation" in our Public Schools. I look at trees in the Gallery that have gotten 10s. What does this mean? That these trees are among the best in the world? If these trees are 10s, what do the trees that I see in "Bonsai Today" deserve? On a scale of one to ten, 20s? 50s? What do the trees that have been declared National Treasures in Japan deserve? 200s? Is there no discernable difference between the "10" trees in the gallery and Walter Pall's best? What is the point of grading if not to make distinctions between tree's of different levels of quality?

I've seen your trees. I don't have a clue as to what they would be deserving of because I don't know what a 10 or a 5 or a 3 means. If a 10 means an OK tree that is identifiable as a bonsai, that's what they deserve. If a 7 means a passable tree that's nothing special, then they deserve 7's. If the grade reflects what percentile they fall into within the American population of Bonsai, then perhaps a 4. If we expand that to a world wide perspective, then perhaps a 2.

So what would you say I should give your trees, a 10, a 7, a 4, or a 2? Because I do intend to grade your trees if you've submitted any of them to the Gallery and I'd certainly like to be fair about it.

Fred

TreeBay

For me it's relative. a "10" is relative to what's already in the Gallery. Not a lot of "Bonsai Today" trees in there. I don't think there are any of Walter's works in there.

Until about a month ago it was a five-point system. There were quite a lot of 4s and 5s that translated to 8s and 10s under the new system on a scale of 10.

I don't give a lot of 10s. I don't believe I have ever given a 1, but there are probably a few trees in there that deserve 1.

So, I do see it as a sliding scale and it's certainly a relative one.

One main consideration:

How sophisticated are the judges? Many might not ever have seen "9" or "10" scale trees as you're defining them, Fred Probably they've been exposed to the 4 and 5 in person and perhaps the 6 in many of the beginner books. That sort of makes an 8 look like a 10.

Once you've seen trees of the quality that are in Andy's Worlds .02, especially in person, most everything else would be a 5 or lower. Those trees are just off our charts. Anyway, we'll probably worry about this more when Kimura and Kobayashi post more of their trees.

Regards,

Matt

__________________

Want to be a seller on bonsaiAUCTIONS? Get authorized today!

bonsaiTALK: Over 100,005.36 Megabytes Served this Month!