TobaccoReviews.com Not Calculating Correctly?

[Kokinhenik]

EDIT: Fixed Capitalization in Title (See Rule 9)

Anyone else experiencing issues with the site? The backend of the site isn't calculating search results correctly and the Badges aren't triggered despite qualifying. I've notified the site multiple times. No action yet. Also I sent them a link to a YouTube video where a prominent blender discussed the varietals in a blend (the site was missing one) and I got an email back saying I was wrong. The blend didn't include that leaf type... what's going on over there???

 

[3rdguy]

The only thing highly accurate on that site is that the reviews are opinions. Read the reviews, then do your own research to a degree but I would not take a lot of the specifics as highly accurate.

 

[mso489]

The individual reviews that turn up from there are varied from slapdash to thoroughly researched and excellent. Reviews usually express at least some opinion. I haven't visited the site itself. With jiminks on Forums, and sable' and others, I feel I get information I can trust, and that any questions will be answered with a high degree of authority. In buying tobacco, the specs offered at the sponsor sites is dependable in most cases. When you get "into the weeds," often it is a technical question. Like, Granger is usually listed as non-aromatic, being rough cut Kentucky burley, but it is flavored with molasses hence is technically an aromatic. Sometimes it's fun spotting the slip-ups.

 

[Kokinhenik]

The only thing highly accurate on that site is that the reviews are opinions. Read the reviews, then do your own research to a degree but I would not take a lot of the specifics as highly accurate.

Understood. It goes without saying the reviews are opinion. My question relates to the search function. Specifically the calculated and returned number of reviews shown in search result (in the review column), no longer matches the number of reviews shown in a blends individual page. There's a significant difference in many cases. This is the result of code problems on the backend of the site. Hope they fix it soon. I'm a huge fan of the site. Especially JimInks reviews!

 

[Casual]

I’ve seen several oddities in the search function. If I had to bet the code is … unsavoury. Try and craft a search that shows Visions of Celephaïs in the results. I haven’t been able to do it. The tobacco is there, but only through the browse function.

 

[sablebrush52]

There hasn't been anyone minding that store for a long, long time and it shows. That will change only if the current owners decide to put someone knowledgeable in charge of it.

 

[BROBS]

Also the search often won’t turn up a blend but if you google the blend TR comes right up

 

[puff_not_snuff]

Did you contact the FDA about it?

 

[sandollars]

Also the search often won’t turn up a blend but if you google the blend TR comes right up

My experience too.

Thought I got lucky once so I submitted a "new" tobacco; pulled photos and descriptions, made it very thorough and professional looking and I got an email back saying that it was already cataloged with a link. The link sent me to the tobacco alright. No picture, just a title and a few checkmarks on the blend contents. That's it. No descriptions or reviews. What they shoulda done was dump the old one and used mine as it followed their format (I have submitted others that were legitimately not in the database and had been accepted) whereas the one that was up wasn't even complete.

 

[BROBS]

My experience too.

Thought I got lucky once so I submitted a "new" tobacco; pulled photos and descriptions, made it very thorough and professional looking and I got an email back saying that it was already cataloged with a link. The link sent me to the tobacco alright. No picture, just a title and a few checkmarks on the blend contents. That's it. No descriptions or reviews. What they shoulda done was dump the old one and used mine as it followed their format (I have submitted others that were legitimately not in the database and had been accepted) whereas the one that was up wasn't even complete.

I guess they were saying to edit that one? You can edit anything on any of them. However they could have just plugged in the info you submitted, or as you said, dump the one that exists already and use yours.

one more gripe is having like 4 listings for the same blend. Someone calls it “Rich Dark Honeydew” and another “Dark Honeydew” Etc etc. I understand there is some confusion with naming of certain blends but in reality they are one blend.

 

[sandollars]

I guess they were saying to edit that one? You can edit anything on any of them. However they could have just plugged in the info you submitted, or as you said, dump the one that exists already and use yours.

one more gripe is having like 4 listings for the same blend. Someone calls it “Rich Dark Honeydew” and another “Dark Honeydew” Etc etc. I understand there is some confusion with naming of certain blends but in reality they are one blend.

I dinna think of that...

 

[mso489]

To pick up sable's point, maintenance is the whole show with websites. They are labor intensive as are few other things, and a little neglect becomes a massive fiasco. It's like the restaurant business; everyone thinks it would be so charming to be the proud owner of a restaurant, whereas the actual labor is unending. Creative cooking is the fun ten percent of it, and much of the rest feels like slave labor. Sleep, forget sleep. I haven't been through this, just a saddened customer when restaurants close.

 

[3rdguy]

Maybe Sykes Wilford will pop in and add some background on the site like he has in the past.

 

[smudgersmissingleg]

Also the search often won’t turn up a blend but if you google the blend TR comes right up

Yeah I've noticed that too. If you type in "Gawith Bourbon Flake" into the search function it doesn't come up, but Google it and there it is. I've noticed this with other blends as well.

 

[BROBS]

Maybe Sykes Wilford will pop in and add some background on the site like he has in the past.

Does laudisi own the TR site?

 

[sandollars]

I thought @jiminks did?

 

[JimInks]

I thought @jiminks did?

I am more interested in world domination!!! ?

Well, that and a few pounds of Stonehaven.

 

[BROBS]

@jiminks :

 

[3rdguy]

Does laudisi own the TR site?

He was involved with it at the beginning but no longer is affiliated with it as I recall. He posted before on here about it a few years ago.

 

[curl]

I use tobaccoreviews to learn what the crowd thinks about tobacco. If you enter one or a few blend attributes + Highly Recommended + 100 reviews, you’ll get a list of blends worth spending your money on. You can do same search with 25 or 50 reviews if you’re more open to new experiences.

Tobacco Reviews | Search Tobaccos

Tobacco Search Keyword Search switch to filter search. Try to search for reviews Change to reviews search

www.tobaccoreviews.com

Just for fun, this is a list tobaccos Not Recommended. The list is almost entirely Aromatics, and there’s a lot of cherry on the list. Borkum Riff Blends dominate the list.

I’m amused by the blends on the list with over a 100 reviews; what does this mean? Pipe smokers are slow learners?