To analyze the usefulness of forensics judges' written comments and to understand how to improve ballots, a content analysis of 175 ballots from schools in a competition district was conducted. Categories for analysis included the following: (1) quantity of comments; (2) format of the ballot; (3) types of comments (including selection, presentational skills, personal comments to contestants, judge disclosure of personal preferences or judging style, and comments written in the form of questions); (4) the value dimension of the comments; (5) the presence or absence of advice; (6) justification of rank; and (7) courtesy comments. The resulting data showed that judges wrote an average of 11 comments per ballot, using sentence format far more often than fragment or other style. An overwhelming majority of comments dealt with presentational skills, very few dealt with the choice or merit of the material. Personal comments to the contestants occurred with great frequency and were often very "personal" in nature. Overall, more negative comments were written than positive, although more than half the ballots contained a good balance of comments. An overwhelming number contained prescriptive advice to the student. However, judges rarely justified their ranking decisions; this is suggested as one area in which judges may best improve their ballot writing. (JG)