ASEV-NGRA Precision Viticulture Symposium

Presenter Information & Speaker Evaluation

Question Title

* 1. Please evaluate each speaker. (speakers listed in presentation order)

	Excellent	Good	Average	Fair	Poor
Rob Bramley, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Australia	Rob Bramley, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Australia Excellent	Rob Bramley, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Australia Good	Rob Bramley, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Australia Average	Rob Bramley, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Australia Fair	Rob Bramley, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Australia Poor
Alireza Pourreza, University of California, Davis	Alireza Pourreza, University of California, Davis Excellent	Alireza Pourreza, University of California, Davis Good	Alireza Pourreza, University of California, Davis Average	Alireza Pourreza, University of California, Davis Fair	Alireza Pourreza, University of California, Davis Poor
Bruno Tisseyre, L’institut Agro, France	Bruno Tisseyre, L’institut Agro, France Excellent	Bruno Tisseyre, L’institut Agro, France Good	Bruno Tisseyre, L’institut Agro, France Average	Bruno Tisseyre, L’institut Agro, France Fair	Bruno Tisseyre, L’institut Agro, France Poor
Vinay Pagay, University of Adelaide, Australia	Vinay Pagay, University of Adelaide, Australia Excellent	Vinay Pagay, University of Adelaide, Australia Good	Vinay Pagay, University of Adelaide, Australia Average	Vinay Pagay, University of Adelaide, Australia Fair	Vinay Pagay, University of Adelaide, Australia Poor
Terry Bates, Cornell University, New York	Terry Bates, Cornell University, New York Excellent	Terry Bates, Cornell University, New York Good	Terry Bates, Cornell University, New York Average	Terry Bates, Cornell University, New York Fair	Terry Bates, Cornell University, New York Poor
Kaitlin Gold, Cornell University, New York	Kaitlin Gold, Cornell University, New York Excellent	Kaitlin Gold, Cornell University, New York Good	Kaitlin Gold, Cornell University, New York Average	Kaitlin Gold, Cornell University, New York Fair	Kaitlin Gold, Cornell University, New York Poor
David Gadoury, Cornell University, New York	David Gadoury, Cornell University, New York Excellent	David Gadoury, Cornell University, New York Good	David Gadoury, Cornell University, New York Average	David Gadoury, Cornell University, New York Fair	David Gadoury, Cornell University, New York Poor
Kent Daane, University of California, Berkeley	Kent Daane, University of California, Berkeley Excellent	Kent Daane, University of California, Berkeley Good	Kent Daane, University of California, Berkeley Average	Kent Daane, University of California, Berkeley Fair	Kent Daane, University of California, Berkeley Poor
Alyssa Whitcraft, NASA Harvest, Maryland	Alyssa Whitcraft, NASA Harvest, Maryland Excellent	Alyssa Whitcraft, NASA Harvest, Maryland Good	Alyssa Whitcraft, NASA Harvest, Maryland Average	Alyssa Whitcraft, NASA Harvest, Maryland Fair	Alyssa Whitcraft, NASA Harvest, Maryland Poor
Yufang Jin, University of California, Davis	Yufang Jin, University of California, Davis Excellent	Yufang Jin, University of California, Davis Good	Yufang Jin, University of California, Davis Average	Yufang Jin, University of California, Davis Fair	Yufang Jin, University of California, Davis Poor
Mason Earles, University of California, Davis	Mason Earles, University of California, Davis Excellent	Mason Earles, University of California, Davis Good	Mason Earles, University of California, Davis Average	Mason Earles, University of California, Davis Fair	Mason Earles, University of California, Davis Poor
Jaco Fourie, Lincoln Agritech, New Zealand	Jaco Fourie, Lincoln Agritech, New Zealand Excellent	Jaco Fourie, Lincoln Agritech, New Zealand Good	Jaco Fourie, Lincoln Agritech, New Zealand Average	Jaco Fourie, Lincoln Agritech, New Zealand Fair	Jaco Fourie, Lincoln Agritech, New Zealand Poor
Russ Smithyman, NGRA Board Chair	Russ Smithyman, NGRA Board Chair Excellent	Russ Smithyman, NGRA Board Chair Good	Russ Smithyman, NGRA Board Chair Average	Russ Smithyman, NGRA Board Chair Fair	Russ Smithyman, NGRA Board Chair Poor
Richard Hoff, Mercer Ranches, Washington	Richard Hoff, Mercer Ranches, Washington Excellent	Richard Hoff, Mercer Ranches, Washington Good	Richard Hoff, Mercer Ranches, Washington Average	Richard Hoff, Mercer Ranches, Washington Fair	Richard Hoff, Mercer Ranches, Washington Poor
Chad Vargas, NewGen Vineyard Services, Oregon	Chad Vargas, NewGen Vineyard Services, Oregon Excellent	Chad Vargas, NewGen Vineyard Services, Oregon Good	Chad Vargas, NewGen Vineyard Services, Oregon Average	Chad Vargas, NewGen Vineyard Services, Oregon Fair	Chad Vargas, NewGen Vineyard Services, Oregon Poor
Thom Betts, Betts Farms, New York	Thom Betts, Betts Farms, New York Excellent	Thom Betts, Betts Farms, New York Good	Thom Betts, Betts Farms, New York Average	Thom Betts, Betts Farms, New York Fair	Thom Betts, Betts Farms, New York Poor
Aaron Lange, Lange Twins, California	Aaron Lange, Lange Twins, California Excellent	Aaron Lange, Lange Twins, California Good	Aaron Lange, Lange Twins, California Average	Aaron Lange, Lange Twins, California Fair	Aaron Lange, Lange Twins, California Poor
Nick Dokoozlian, E. & J. Gallo Winery, California	Nick Dokoozlian, E. & J. Gallo Winery, California Excellent	Nick Dokoozlian, E. & J. Gallo Winery, California Good	Nick Dokoozlian, E. & J. Gallo Winery, California Average	Nick Dokoozlian, E. & J. Gallo Winery, California Fair	Nick Dokoozlian, E. & J. Gallo Winery, California 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