Luxury Tobacco Reviews - A Constructive Rant

[schmitzbitz]

Over the past couple of months, I have noticed an increase in posts condemning PipesMagazine.com's sister site, LuxuryTobaccoReviews.com. Often, these posts take on the same tone, pointing out LTR.coms glaring deficiency, a lack of actual reviews.

At the same time, I have noticed an increase in threads started under the "General Tobacco Discussion" topic that are straight up reviews; often cut/pasted from TobaccoReviews.com (which, of course, is hailed as a saviour for the innumerable reviews posted.)
Both of these sites run on the same basic principle, requiring user generated content. Do you guys see where I am going here?
Honestly, it doesn't take all that long to sign into LTR.com and post your reivew, particularly if you have already written it, and are posting it on TobaccoReviews.com or the forum boards. If everybody posted a single review at LRT.com rather than posting a gripe about the lack of content, we would more than double the number of reviews available for our perusal - and fix the issue with "means", whereby one reviewer rates a blend 1 star, a second rates it 5 stars, and the overall is a mean of 3 stars (not really indiciative of either experience).

Now, for those of you who are saying, "That's great, but I want to review (insert blend here), and it's not listed at LTR.com!", I have a solution for you too. There are a few people (and I don't list myself amongst them, nor, with the exception of Kevin, could I tell you who they are) who have the ability to add new blends to LTR.com. If you note somewhere (perhaps the Now Smoking thread) that you would like to review a particular blend that isn't listed, I suspect one of these people would be kind enough to assist.
I'll jump off my soap-box now, thanks for letting me rant.
Adam

 

[cyndi]

In a Web 2.0 world, it is important to realize that a website's rise and fall is in its user generated content. All media is becoming social media, and our use or disuse is what defines sucess.
That being said, the reviews and ratings don't need to be 500 word essays on intricacies that aren't quite defined. "Great flavor, doesn't bite, but comes really wet in the tin" is a useful review of a product. It may not be the best review, but it's accurate and better than nothing. It helps in reviews to define what points you want to look for when you are describing quality. Write them down on an index card and follow the formula for each review. From there, if you still have time/energy, put some personality to it.
I'm not saying that I know best because I have absolutely 0 reviews over there right now. I also don't complain about a tool when it is within MY power to improve it. Adam, you got it right. We need to take responsibility for the care and mantainence of our tools - and a major tool is a review site that helps us decide where to spend our money.

 

[withnail]

Sounds fair! A review site is only as good as the reviews it contains. The advantage that Tobacco Review has is it has been going for a long time. If, as you say, each of us did a single review, the site would quickly grow into a valuable source of information.

 

[chopz]

to be brutally honest, the search-by-brand/search-by-blend format of the other place is so much easier to work. take something like plum cake for example: it's a lat - no wait it has a topping so it's an aromatic. there's a chance after searching in a few categories the blend i'm looking for isn't even there. if such cross references were in place it might be a little more user-friendly.

 

[admin]

Thanks for that constructive rant Adam. I have 3 things to add from where I sit. First is the story of the birth of LTR, and then two observations - one about UGC and one about human nature.
If you like business stories, then you may enjoy this one. I hope you appreciate how forthcoming I am being here.
A couple of years ago, I tried to buy TR, but we couldn't agree on a price. (When I'm looking to buy a website, I get to a point where if the price gets too high, I just figure I can build one from scratch and then build up the traffic as I know how to do those things.)
Then ...
Almost exactly one year ago (in November 2010) I found out that someone else made a deal to buy TR. Being the hyper-competitive person that I am, this irked me that I didn't get it, and I decided to become a competitor. I felt I had to act fast ... very, very fast as I set a goal to announce my new site before they could announce the new ownership.
I wanted to steal their thunder, and I wanted to seem proactive, although now the truth be told, I was reacting ... but nobody knew that.
I put in an insane amount of hours working day and night. I worked through the 2010 Thanksgiving weekend staying home by myself while my girlfriend and her son went to a friend's house. I worked through the Christmas holidays. My then girlfriend went to Paris right after Christmas, and I stayed home to work on LTR straight through the holidays. (The relationship was on pretty shaky ground at that point, and we broke up in February anyway.)
I registered the domain LuxuryTobaccoReviews.com on November 18, 2010, and announced it to the trade and the public on December 28, 2010. I single-handedly designed, programmed and populated the site with 600+ tobaccos, including photos and descriptions in 40 calendar days.
I achieved my goal of announcing the new site before the TR new ownership could be announced.

 

[matchstickman]

I single-handedly designed, programmed and populated the site with 600+ tobaccos, including photos and descriptions in 40 calendar days.
I achieved my goal of announcing the new site before the TR new ownership could be announced.

:worship: :clap:
Kevin, that kind of work ethic is rarely found in America these days, as the general public has become too complacent and reliant on hand outs and gimmes. I have a new found respect for you, sir. Thank you.

 

[tobakenist]

I'm with you on this one. I signed up just the other night and will start doing afew reviews soon, this is all it takes, user input.

 

[admin]

UGC = User Generated Content
YouTube and MySpace were two of the original UGC sites that went big when the web 2.0 world began. However, way before they existed, Forums had been around for a while. I just don't think the term User Generated Content was being used yet.
Forums are different than the more modern UGC sites. Forums were the original virtual socializing platform and they are still a great way to discuss topics in an organized fashion. By the discussion nature of forums, it is easy to have quality UGC with few requirements on writing ability, style, length, etc.
Here's what I learned about UGC outside of forums. Most of it sucks ... Big Time.
We used to have user blogs here on PM. I killed most of them and left a small handful up. The creation of new blogs has been disabled for some time.
A crucial part of the business model here is High Quality Content.
One of the most common complaints about TR is that there are so many "non-reviews" - they are too short, not enough info, they are stupid, like "I hate aromatics, but decided to try this one anyway, and it sucked". You all know the story.
We said we would only publish real reviews on LTR. But then we have the problem of most people not having the ability to do a review like Adam or myself. Cortezattic, Romeowood and Lawrence have done some really good ones, as have others.
At one point, I deleted about 100 reviews that were only 3 sentences or less, but then we have the paradox of needing content on the site, so some of those have crept back in and I've left them.
To be continued ...

 

[admin]

In trying to balance the UGC with professional publishing, I originally set up the site so I would be the only one with the ability to add tobaccos to the site. Anyone can make an account and post a review, but only I could enter info.
The reason is that I wanted to maintain a professional look and consistency. For example, one rule is that a tobacco does not go in without some type of good photo of the tin. For some there is just a logo as they have no packaging.
I also wanted to make sure the info was 100% accurate. Another part of our business model related to quality content is accuracy. TR may have cleaned up some of this stuff now, but in the past you could find Dunhill blends still being listed as made by Murray Sons & Co, Ltd. Murrays no longer exist and Dunhill is made in the Orlik factory now.
Now the conundrum is that I am only one person with only so much time in the day ... and new tobaccos keep coming out ... but I'm afraid of the site getting all crapped up if I let anyone add stuff to it.
I was handling several requests to add tobaccos for a while.
I love observing human nature ...
I finally got to the point where I secretly picked five (5) people that I gave the ability to add tobaccos. A couple of them were guys that had previously been sending me lists of tobaccos they wanted added.
That was three months ago in mid-August.
I'll give you one guess how many new tobaccos have been added since then by any of five with the new privileges.
Give up?
ZERO

 

[withnail]

Just posted my very first review on http://luxurytobaccoreviews.com/ for one of my favourite blends - University Flake. I hope other forum members decide to support the site and post their own reviews in the coming days and weeks.
I can see the reason for not wanting anyone to add tobacco blends to the data base without checking that the information is correct. Maybe some simple sort of request form that will show you which blends are the most requested additions. That way you can concentrate your time on adding those with the largest number of requests. Maybe add a section to a "blend request" form for the actual review so when it is added you will already have some reviews to go with the new addition?

 

[schmitzbitz]

I'll give you one guess how many new tobaccos have been added since then by any of five with the new privileges.
Give up?
ZERO

Perhaps a stickied thread where people can request blends to be added, so said people with powers can know what to add? I know that what I randomly buy isn't going to be the same as what withnail, or Cyndi, or Kevin (well, ok, maybe not Kevin since he tends to want to photograph everything I smoke...weirdo) buys on a whim. After all, the five selectees, while great people with awesome intentions, I'm sure, are not mind-readers and don't know what random blends YOU have in your pipe today.

 

[pipeinhand]

Thanks for the input Kevin and the soapbox from Adam. I agree. Here we are, a community of like minded folks with something to say, AND a place to say it. I like constructive information on my hobby, and I do not play favorites even if it is a sponsor of our beloved site. A product should stand on it's own merit and not because it has a nice picture on a website, no matter who's it is.
Up until 4 months ago I ran (and part owner) the engineering end of a 20+ million dollar a year company for nearly 13 years. I am now semi-retired and would love to put time into an endeavor such as reviews but, there is no reason everyone in PM community could not spend 10 minutes and write an insightful, unbiased, intelligent and researched review on one of the things they love most, tobacco. I have said it on the forums before, more is better, as you get a broader view of a product when you have more input.
So, volunteer, write a review, send it to someone, get it noticed, and lets make the experience of pipe smoking better, I will. Even if you don't get it in the LTR reviews, the very fact of writing about it makes YOU feel better about your hobby and makes you better informed.
OK, now I step down. ::

 

[markw4mms]

I have only done one review on the forum, and it was on Sterling's 1776 Tavern. I'm far from a pro when it comes to this kind of thing, but if Kevin wants to add it to LTR, I'm sure I can find the post and submit it. The one issue I have is no pics to go with it as I have no decent camera at the moment.

 

[admin]

Great input and responses people. I appreciate it. Thanks for the new review Withnail.
IMPORTANT:
I 100% guarantee that anybody's review will come out better if they use this, like following a recipe, step-by-step, while doing their review - How to Write a Tobacco Review - Made Easy by G. L. Pease.

 

[admin]

Reviews don't require photos on LTR, but they can be used as a few have done.
The photo requirement is for listing a tobacco.

 

[brewshooter]

Hmm, well, I'm participating in a monthly tobacco review thread on another forum and I don't see any reason why I couldn't post my reviews on LTR as well. I've done two so far and have a third one in the can for December. I don't think me reviews are anything spectacular, but they are far better than the two sentence, "I hate this tobacco," type of review.
EDIT: Okay, I just put up my review for Orlik Golden Sliced. I don't see the other two tobaccos I've written reviews for, but will take a look at what else is up there.

 

[cyndi]

Shaun and I used to have some really good review standards that we wrote for another website's reviews and newsletters. Tomorrow holds a hard drive search since I don't remember where I stuck it.
Kevin - one thing that might help (I dunno, the world comes up with newer, more complicated idiots every year) is to have prompts. Like the reviews on Sephora.com are submitted on usability, value, recommendation to friends, pros, cons, and has a text field for extra comments. It's one of the best product review sites I've ever seen (even though they sell the product too.) Users can rate the review itself so that the more thoughtful reviews are sorted towards the top while reviews like "this tasted like my great aunt's carbuncle!!!11" are buried. It may be worth "borrowing" their format.