Exit this survey

Brettanomyces Symposium

Presenter Information & Speaker Evaluation

Question Title

* 1. Please evaluate each speaker.

	Excellent	Good	Average	Fair	Poor
Linda Bisson, University of California, Davis	Linda Bisson, University of California, Davis Excellent	Linda Bisson, University of California, Davis Good	Linda Bisson, University of California, Davis Average	Linda Bisson, University of California, Davis Fair	Linda Bisson, University of California, Davis Poor
Ileana Vigentini, University of Milan, Italy	Ileana Vigentini, University of Milan, Italy Excellent	Ileana Vigentini, University of Milan, Italy Good	Ileana Vigentini, University of Milan, Italy Average	Ileana Vigentini, University of Milan, Italy Fair	Ileana Vigentini, University of Milan, Italy Poor
Chris Curtin, Oregon State University, Corvallis	Chris Curtin, Oregon State University, Corvallis Excellent	Chris Curtin, Oregon State University, Corvallis Good	Chris Curtin, Oregon State University, Corvallis Average	Chris Curtin, Oregon State University, Corvallis Fair	Chris Curtin, Oregon State University, Corvallis Poor
Torey Arvik, Jackson Family Wines, California	Torey Arvik, Jackson Family Wines, California Excellent	Torey Arvik, Jackson Family Wines, California Good	Torey Arvik, Jackson Family Wines, California Average	Torey Arvik, Jackson Family Wines, California Fair	Torey Arvik, Jackson Family Wines, California Poor
Lucy Joseph, University of California, Davis	Lucy Joseph, University of California, Davis Excellent	Lucy Joseph, University of California, Davis Good	Lucy Joseph, University of California, Davis Average	Lucy Joseph, University of California, Davis Fair	Lucy Joseph, University of California, Davis Poor
Richard DeScenzo, ETS Laboratories, California	Richard DeScenzo, ETS Laboratories, California Excellent	Richard DeScenzo, ETS Laboratories, California Good	Richard DeScenzo, ETS Laboratories, California Average	Richard DeScenzo, ETS Laboratories, California Fair	Richard DeScenzo, ETS Laboratories, California Poor
Thomas Henick-Kling, Washington State University, Tri-Cities	Thomas Henick-Kling, Washington State University, Tri-Cities Excellent	Thomas Henick-Kling, Washington State University, Tri-Cities Good	Thomas Henick-Kling, Washington State University, Tri-Cities Average	Thomas Henick-Kling, Washington State University, Tri-Cities Fair	Thomas Henick-Kling, Washington State University, Tri-Cities Poor
Charles Edwards, Washington State University, Pullman	Charles Edwards, Washington State University, Pullman Excellent	Charles Edwards, Washington State University, Pullman Good	Charles Edwards, Washington State University, Pullman Average	Charles Edwards, Washington State University, Pullman Fair	Charles Edwards, Washington State University, Pullman Poor
Steve Peck, J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines, California (Winemaker Panel)	Steve Peck, J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines, California (Winemaker Panel) Excellent	Steve Peck, J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines, California (Winemaker Panel) Good	Steve Peck, J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines, California (Winemaker Panel) Average	Steve Peck, J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines, California (Winemaker Panel) Fair	Steve Peck, J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines, California (Winemaker Panel) Poor
Marcia Torres Forno, Jackson Family Wines, California (Winemaker Panel)	Marcia Torres Forno, Jackson Family Wines, California (Winemaker Panel) Excellent	Marcia Torres Forno, Jackson Family Wines, California (Winemaker Panel) Good	Marcia Torres Forno, Jackson Family Wines, California (Winemaker Panel) Average	Marcia Torres Forno, Jackson Family Wines, California (Winemaker Panel) Fair	Marcia Torres Forno, Jackson Family Wines, California (Winemaker Panel) Poor

Question Title

* 2. Please rate the following presenter information.

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Presenters were well prepared and organized.	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Strongly Agree	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Agree	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Neutral	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Disagree	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Strongly Disagree
Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter.	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Strongly Agree	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Agree	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Neutral	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Disagree	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Strongly Disagree
Presenters’ style was clear and effective.	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Strongly Agree	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Agree	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Neutral	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Disagree	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Strongly Disagree
Presenters stimulated interest and discussion.	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Strongly Agree	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Agree	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Neutral	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Disagree	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Strongly Disagree
Presenters were responsive to participants.	Presenters were responsive to participants. Strongly Agree	Presenters were responsive to participants. Agree	Presenters were responsive to participants. Neutral	Presenters were responsive to participants. Disagree	Presenters were responsive to participants. Strongly Disagree
Visual aids were useful and appropriate.	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Strongly Agree	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Agree	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Neutral	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Disagree	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Strongly Disagree