<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Walk in The Woods</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thescotchcast.com/2007/12/a-walk-in-the-woods/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thescotchcast.com/2007/12/a-walk-in-the-woods/</link>
	<description>All single malt, all the time!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:09:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Gray</title>
		<link>http://www.thescotchcast.com/2007/12/a-walk-in-the-woods/comment-page-1/#comment-126</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Gray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:39:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thescotchcast.com/?p=62#comment-126</guid>
		<description>I feel like the scoring system is getting stale. The scotch is supposed to be judged on a scale of 1-10, but the actual range of the averaged scores of you 16 graded scotches is only 3.5. The lowest score given by one of the main judges is a 6. The elaborated scoring system itself is faulty: the system lumps scores of 1-5 (half the points possible for any scotch) under a group description (i.e. &quot;significant problems&quot;). If separate criteria are not set forth for a 3 vs. a 4, how are different judges expected to grade a lower-scoring scotch similarly and consistently? Also, if supermarket scotches are scoring 6 or more, why even have scores of 1 through 5? What could a 1 possibly be? Why is a score of 5 not an &quot;average&quot; scotch? I think using the full 10 point scale would open up conversation for more disagreement between judges as well as allowing listeners listeners a more appreciable sense of what was really liked or disliked. Another option would be to admit you are using a three point scale (bad, ok, and very good), which would at least be honest. Siskel &amp; Ebert got famous on less! Thanks for the show.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I feel like the scoring system is getting stale. The scotch is supposed to be judged on a scale of 1-10, but the actual range of the averaged scores of you 16 graded scotches is only 3.5. The lowest score given by one of the main judges is a 6. The elaborated scoring system itself is faulty: the system lumps scores of 1-5 (half the points possible for any scotch) under a group description (i.e. &#8220;significant problems&#8221;). If separate criteria are not set forth for a 3 vs. a 4, how are different judges expected to grade a lower-scoring scotch similarly and consistently? Also, if supermarket scotches are scoring 6 or more, why even have scores of 1 through 5? What could a 1 possibly be? Why is a score of 5 not an &#8220;average&#8221; scotch? I think using the full 10 point scale would open up conversation for more disagreement between judges as well as allowing listeners listeners a more appreciable sense of what was really liked or disliked. Another option would be to admit you are using a three point scale (bad, ok, and very good), which would at least be honest. Siskel &amp; Ebert got famous on less! Thanks for the show.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chip</title>
		<link>http://www.thescotchcast.com/2007/12/a-walk-in-the-woods/comment-page-1/#comment-105</link>
		<dc:creator>Chip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:14:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thescotchcast.com/?p=62#comment-105</guid>
		<description>Hey, thanks for the awesome comment, dc!!

We are thrilled to be your new favorite podcast. All of us have a blast doing the show, so knowing that listeners are enjoying it just makes it more fun. It is also nice to know that someone is tasting along with us!

I think we knew that the second finish was sherry, but our brains failed us. I had the container next to me, so I really should have looked at it and verified the second finish. Thanks for keeping us honest!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, thanks for the awesome comment, dc!!</p>
<p>We are thrilled to be your new favorite podcast. All of us have a blast doing the show, so knowing that listeners are enjoying it just makes it more fun. It is also nice to know that someone is tasting along with us!</p>
<p>I think we knew that the second finish was sherry, but our brains failed us. I had the container next to me, so I really should have looked at it and verified the second finish. Thanks for keeping us honest!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dc</title>
		<link>http://www.thescotchcast.com/2007/12/a-walk-in-the-woods/comment-page-1/#comment-103</link>
		<dc:creator>dc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:42:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thescotchcast.com/?p=62#comment-103</guid>
		<description>Just finished listening to show #7 and tasted along with you guys for the first time (port wood finish).  It really made the show more enjoyable (for once I wasn&#039;t jealous you guys were drinking scotch and I wasn&#039;t) and hearing your comments while having the first glass of a scotch I&#039;d never tried really enhanced the experience.  Thanks a lot, this is fast becoming my favorite podcast!
--------
btw, the Balvenie Doublewood&#039;s second finish is sherry, not port (I&#039;m sure you guys realized this after the show, but thought I&#039;d mention it in case someone reads this comment).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just finished listening to show #7 and tasted along with you guys for the first time (port wood finish).  It really made the show more enjoyable (for once I wasn&#8217;t jealous you guys were drinking scotch and I wasn&#8217;t) and hearing your comments while having the first glass of a scotch I&#8217;d never tried really enhanced the experience.  Thanks a lot, this is fast becoming my favorite podcast!<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br />
btw, the Balvenie Doublewood&#8217;s second finish is sherry, not port (I&#8217;m sure you guys realized this after the show, but thought I&#8217;d mention it in case someone reads this comment).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

