Banned from Tobaccoreviews.com

[WhiteCrown]

I'm looking for some feedback on me first adventure in the "online pipe community". I have been smoking pipe a couple years (I tried it when I was younger but quit because I hadn't found good tobacco) and decided it was time to share my experience as I have benefitted from others doing the same.

One of the first tobaccos I wanted to review was from Erin Go Bragh (P&C), but that brand was unlisted on TR.com, so I added it and all three of their blends. I found my review had been moved to the "brand" STG. Well, that isn't a brand, it's a manufacturer and there's a completely different data field for that, so I updated it for all three blends. The next day I found a lot of the info and the pictures I added to be deleted and STG was the brand again, so I moved them back and messaged the moderator. Here's the thing: on STG's own website they have a section with "our brands" listing Erinmore, Captain Black, etc. so I'm not making this up, STG doesn't even consider themselves to be their brand. I moved the tobaccos back again and they got put right back under STG as the brand. I sent another moderator message, still having received no reply.

Meanwhile I noticed many other tobaccos having "Brand", "Manufacturer", and "Blended By" all filled out with the manufacturer only. I changed all of Captain Black from Brand: Lane, Mfg: Lane to Brand: Captain Black, Mfg: Lane per the website, and proceeded to do the same for a lot of other tobaccos. Several of these brands actually had one or two of their blends listed correctly by brand, with the rest listed by manufacturer with the brand name incorporated into the blend name. I fixed most of it. Now I am banned, someone has changed it all back, and I still haven't heard a peep from anyone about any of it.

Am I crazy and does someone need to tell STG/Lane that they need to update their website and Erinmore isn't actually one of their brands, and all of what they think are brands that they own are just blend names? Or, are the people running tobaccoreviews.com not smart enough to know the difference between four separate data fields on one of their tobacco listings (brand, manufacturer, blend name, blended by) and that they don't all four need to say the same thing?

BTW, the P&C website also lists "Erin Go Bragh" as a "brand".

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

What's with the reviewing only three blends and then saying you started making changes to a lot of other tobaccos? Doesn't make sense, but I doubt messing with things would endear you to the site.

As Nancy Sinatra famously sang, "You been messin' where you shouldn't be a messin'"

I know one of the people over there is pretty smart, lol. I'd probably have figured they can categorize it on their website however they want to and not get to invested in it, but I try to avoid stress when I can.

 

[MattRVA]

I think Erin Go Bragh is made by Sutliff. It’s all the same these days… at least it will be eventually. Consolidation is killing blends as far as I’m concerned.

 

[SBC]

Some personalities get stuck on what's correct, at the expense of other considerations.

I know because that was/is my tendency, by nature.
I've grown a lot.

Don't get me wrong: There are times to stand by what's true, let the chips fall where they may.

But sometimes we die on hills that didn't need to be died on, or wave flags that didn't need to be waved, or burn bridges before they needed to be burned.

If those tasked with the difficult, invisible, and thankless task of moderating a website choose to categorize manufacurer as brand, or whatever, it's really OK. People can still find the tobacco, and it's not a moral issue.

Let people be "wrong" on non-moral issues that aren't doing damage. Especially on their turf, when you're the newcomer.

You can't just take charge in any situation you step into. Earn your influence for awhile. Then, when you've patiently earned it, step on as few toes as possibly -- like maybe by writing a mod first and offering to help with some categorizations. But accepting that it's their business, not yours, if they disagree.

You didn't get banned from the first or second time. You got banned after numerous pushbacks. Don't be that guy.

The good news is that you can learn that lesson on something as un-important as a tobacco review website.
If this helps you relate more helpfully in other relationships, then it was well worth it.

Wish you the best. And welcome to the forum!

 

[Streeper541]

Was it really such a big a deal that you had to combat it to the level that you got banned from the site?

I can't wait to see how much fun you bring here. Welcome aboard I guess.

 

[TexJake]

Agreed with @SBC … I tend to be one of the guys that naturally tends to try and ensure things are “correct,” but I have also learned that there are so many instances where it just doesn’t matter that much. In those that do, there is usually a very productive way to handle it. While I’m sure you had good intentions, I have to say if I had a website with peer review features enabled and a “new guy” showed up and started blanket editing key fields without communicating ahead of time, my biggest concern would not be whether “new guy” was correct, but how much damage can potentially be done by not ensuring consistency is maintained on the site. Right or wrong classification/brand/whatever - you really going to go through thousands of entries to ensure that ALL of them are consistent, or just a few? Site moderators are concerned with the bigger picture, and I think on that site, that means consistency whether it’s “correct” or not.

All that being said - their fields don’t matter all that much anyway, as they really should be creating a robust search-ability of the entries, but I have found their search function to work poorly, and as such, really don’t pay attention to much of what’s entered in those data fields anyway... I would bet that about 90%+ of users on that site skip the top section, look at the average stars, and start reading reviews.

 

[5star]

TR is a very useful resource IMO.

Might want to reconsider your approach

Mac

 

[burleybreath]

I could care less, as idiots like to say, when they mean "I couldn't care less." Suggest you adopt that attitude, even if you have to fake it. The return on investment just isn't worth the time.

 

[WhiteCrown]

HawkeyeLinus: Over the course of these happenings I reviewed over 40 blends. I agree that they can categorize however they want, but if that was the case they could have responded to my first, second, or third message with “this is just the way we do it here” and that would be fine. I had every reason to believe it was another user, and/or they weren’t paying attention to it as they didn't reply to any of my messages. After several days passed I had the time to sit down, research a few old tobaccos, and some new ones while drinking a cup of tea, and correct a lot of it. For me it was enjoyable and I learned some tobacco brand and manufacturer history, but it also got me turned into and “emiratus account”.

SBC: I see what you are saying and its true. I truly was trying to positively contribute to the site, and not without asking. No one answered. Isn't that what a site like TR.com is for, users to sign up and start contributing? Someone was deleting some of my contributions, again with no reply (was it another user?) so I re-added them a couple times. If I wasn't supposed to be doing it then why could I, and was another user doing the same thing in the opposite? The only thing I have to go off of with no responses, is that it was a mod because they banned me.

Streeper541: I understand your perspective, as my first post could lead you to perceive that I am an angry and aggressive person. It is interesting that you are insinuating that it is me who is going to cause problems here, while simultaneously casting the first stone. Please let me make more than one post before you start doing that.

 

[jndyer]

So, you thought you would correct an established and reputable site and they undid you correction (I get that you were doing this in an attempt to help out), then you went and reapplied your changes and they once again reverted back to the format they have be using so you then decided to make several changes on their platform across a large portion of their site and are now shocked that they decided to cut ties with you. What did you think was going to happen?

 

[WhiteCrown]

So, you thought you would correct an established and reputable site and they undid you correction (I get that you were doing this in an attempt to help out), then you went and reapplied your changes and they once again reverted back to the format they have be using so you then decided to make several changes on their platform across a large portion of their site and are now shocked that they decided to cut ties with you. What did you think was going to happen?

As you say, it being a reputable site, I was leaning to assume it was another user. Also since I sent three messages with no replies from the site, I leaned toward assuming it was another user. Honestly I would expect the other guy get banned.

But perhaps it wasn't an "other guy". This is why it is perplexing to me. If it was a mod they had many opportunities to reply and/or tell me to knock it off. Nope. Just ban. And here I am trying to defend myself for some reason. It's clear that most of you think I was doing wrong. I accept that, I suppose.

 

[WhiteCrown]

I could care less, as idiots like to say, when they mean "I couldn't care less." Suggest you adopt that attitude, even if you have to fake it. The return on investment just isn't worth the time.

You could be more right... couldn't I mean.

 

[sablebrush52]

I'm looking for some feedback on me first adventure in the "online pipe community". I have been smoking pipe a couple years (I tried it when I was younger but quit because I hadn't found good tobacco) and decided it was time to share my experience as I have benefitted from others doing the same.

One of the first tobaccos I wanted to review was from Erin Go Bragh (P&C), but that brand was unlisted on TR.com, so I added it and all three of their blends. I found my review had been moved to the "brand" STG. Well, that isn't a brand, it's a manufacturer and there's a completely different data field for that, so I updated it for all three blends. The next day I found a lot of the info and the pictures I added to be deleted and STG was the brand again, so I moved them back and messaged the moderator. Here's the thing: on STG's own website they have a section with "our brands" listing Erinmore, Captain Black, etc. so I'm not making this up, STG doesn't even consider themselves to be their brand. I moved the tobaccos back again and they got put right back under STG as the brand. I sent another moderator message, still having received no reply.

Meanwhile I noticed many other tobaccos having "Brand", "Manufacturer", and "Blended By" all filled out with the manufacturer only. I changed all of Captain Black from Brand: Lane, Mfg: Lane to Brand: Captain Black, Mfg: Lane per the website, and proceeded to do the same for a lot of other tobaccos. Several of these brands actually had one or two of their blends listed correctly by brand, with the rest listed by manufacturer with the brand name incorporated into the blend name. I fixed most of it. Now I am banned, someone has changed it all back, and I still haven't heard a peep from anyone about any of it.

Am I crazy and does someone need to tell STG/Lane that they need to update their website and Erinmore isn't actually one of their brands, and all of what they think are brands that they own are just blend names? Or, are the people running tobaccoreviews.com not smart enough to know the difference between four separate data fields on one of their tobacco listings (brand, manufacturer, blend name, blended by) and that they don't all four need to say the same thing?

BTW, the P&C website also lists "Erin Go Bragh" as a "brand".

Basically, you decided to insist on changing entries that the admin was satisfied with as is. That ticks them off and gets you banned. You wouldn't be the first and you won't be the last. At TR the term "brand" can be synonymous with manufacturer. Click on Brand and type in McClelland and it shows up as the brand, so does Erin Go Bragh. They have a flexible approach to the term. Repeatedly try to change that and Poof! You're gone.

 

[K.E. Powell]

SBC is offering some very healthy advice, my dude. I'd take it and move on.

 

[blackpowderpiper]

I think if you go back and review your original post, it should be self-evident what the problem is. Your input was not solicited by the website and it would appear they attempted twice to convey that to you.

It seems like what you were doing went far beyond simply uploading a tobacco review. Perhaps you wanted the format to conform to what you wanted it to be without considering that they had already performed their due diligence and things were setup the way that they wanted it to be.

This could be a useful lesson going forward. Having said that, welcome to the forum. Take a moment to introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about yourself.

 

[kcghost]

I never had any problems with TR but I bet it's been 20 years since I posted anything there. It is there website and they can run it however they wish. it's up to us to get along or move along.

 

[shermnatman]

Nuff' Said - Sherm Natman

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I haven’t kept up with what’s going on there at that site, but the last threads here I remember concerning TR was that no one was moderating that site anymore. Not sure how long ago that was, but is it back to normal there? Or abnormal? Or whatever.

 

[WhiteCrown]

I think if you go back and review your original post, it should be self-evident what the problem is. Your input was not solicited by the website and it would appear they attempted twice to convey that to you.

It seems like what you were doing went far beyond simply uploading a tobacco review. Perhaps you wanted the format to conform to what you wanted it to be without considering that they had already performed their due diligence and things were setup the way that they wanted it to be.

This could be a useful lesson going forward. Having said that, welcome to the forum. Take a moment to introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about yourself.

I think you are right. Like I said though, for all I knew it was another user. I wish they would have replied to one of my messages so I knew it was them wanting it that way. Oh well, I won't be adding anything over there anymore, and they are probably happy with that.

 

[Old_Newby]

Yea you got bit. I learned a long time ago being technically correct is not always good if you upset others and to pick your battles. The moderator probably should have responded but going back and changing it again and again antagonized the moderator. These forums are free and fun but are a lot of time and work for moderators to maintain them and likely for no return on investment. Just let them run the show and enjoy the ride. Enjoy your tobacco or whiskey or whatever vices you enjoy but don’t get pulled into the smaller details. If your wife bakes you a cake don’t complain it’s not your favorite.