Observation About Reviews, In General...
- Thread starter aquadoc
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
This is how I use tobaccoreviews.com.....look up a tobacco you have already tried, find people who tasted what you tasted and liked or disliked the tobacco for roughly the same reasons that you did. Then go to that persons list and read up how they felt about other tobaccos you have tried, when you find a couple of people who have very similar taste to yours, then you can start trying blends they like a lot that you haven't yet tried. If these people haven't tried a blend that I'm curious about, then...I go to Jiminks for an objective review, as he gives as unbiased review as is possible and I appreciate that a lot. However, I generally prefer it when someone tells me if they like it or dislike it and why, no offense meant to Jiminks or any other reviewer, just my personal preference.
At TR I'll start with the low reviews first, and work my way up. it's easy enough to ignore the ones that don't make sense, and usually there are relevant comments in others as well.
I tend to use tobaccoreviews from a statistical point of view, for example I might do an advanced search for all the virginias in flake form, without toppings and without perique, then I rank them by review count, and look at the highest average score for the top smoked options...its been a good place to start for me, over the last few years I have gotten a number of new blends this way.
I really prefer a review, maybe less objective, but that tells me about the overall taste of the tobacco, rather than a list of the characteristics of the single ingredients and I think also that reviewing after having several bowls of a blend is much better...
raybrown', I don't know how many reviews you've read. I've run into quite a few that are almost like creative writing exercises but with little info. So though the personal essay may be of some interest, without fundamental information (what tobaccos, what cut, what flavoring if any, etc.) I don't really feel I'm on the subject. Also, sometimes more than half the review is about the experience rather than the tobacco. I don't know how to translate that, despite being an actively imaginative and empathic person. This is just my take. There may be a whole separate audience who wants a mostly subjective review of a blend, but I don't visualize how that's useful.
Just remember aquadoc, every blend put out there was put out there because the company liked it. No one produces a blend that they think won't sell! So it is not a matter of a blend being "good" or "bad" as much as it is being the kind of smoke a reviewer likes or not. I don't generally go after reviews or care much what others think, but it seems to me that if a reviewer rips a blend rather than saying it wasn't for him, that says less about the tobacco and more about the reviewer. Reviews are fine, but the best way to discover what to think about a blend is to smoke it yourself.
I've read daily the new reviews from Tobacco Reviews web site for a long time: the infos about the tobaccos in the blend, the cut and the toppings are clearly mentioned in the general description of the blend at the top of the page, so there's no need to read the reviews to know it; I expect from the reviewer to know some particularities about the blend, that makes it different from Others, not that it contains grassy virginia, earthy orientals and Smoky latakia, as other hundreds of blends...
"I've read daily the new reviews from Tobacco Reviews web site for a long time"
I never noticed that. Took me a short while to find it, top right hand corner. As many times as I have been on TR, I am surprised I never noticed that feature. Nice. Thanks
I never noticed that. Took me a short while to find it, top right hand corner. As many times as I have been on TR, I am surprised I never noticed that feature. Nice. Thanks
Any review is subjective but you hope with a scoring system that there is an overriding objective element. And I think there is for the most part. I think it is human nature in some ways to down vote things we are diametrically opposed too.
I randomly chose an aromatic and a number of other non aromatic blends to examine only the 1 star or do not recommend votes. This is what I found.
Mac Baren Vanilla Cream Flake: Score of 2.7 with 104 reviews
19 "1" Star reviews
Preferences of the 1 star reviewers:
Latakia: 10
Oriental/Turkish: 7
Perique: 8
Virginia: 12
Kentucky: 2
Burley: 3
Black Cavendish: 1
The other blends, I have not found a similar pattern. The aromatic lovers do not seem to be trying the other blends or, if they are, they are not leaving negative reviews as often. Of course it could be that I have not given this enough effort.
I randomly chose an aromatic and a number of other non aromatic blends to examine only the 1 star or do not recommend votes. This is what I found.
Mac Baren Vanilla Cream Flake: Score of 2.7 with 104 reviews
19 "1" Star reviews
Preferences of the 1 star reviewers:
Latakia: 10
Oriental/Turkish: 7
Perique: 8
Virginia: 12
Kentucky: 2
Burley: 3
Black Cavendish: 1
The other blends, I have not found a similar pattern. The aromatic lovers do not seem to be trying the other blends or, if they are, they are not leaving negative reviews as often. Of course it could be that I have not given this enough effort.
One of the problems I have with topped tobacco being labeled as aromatic, is the fact that it attracts lots of candy smokers who critique the blends harshness.
It'd be nice if we had some sort distinction between the two kinds of aromatics.
With ones being nicotine-less weed filled with toppings while others being proper tobacco that have noticeable sauce applied.
http://www.tobaccoreviews.com/blend/2072/gawith-hoggarth-co-black-cherry-twist
A fine example of what I am talking about.
It'd be nice if we had some sort distinction between the two kinds of aromatics.
With ones being nicotine-less weed filled with toppings while others being proper tobacco that have noticeable sauce applied.
http://www.tobaccoreviews.com/blend/2072/gawith-hoggarth-co-black-cherry-twist
A fine example of what I am talking about.
Kanse, that is what I am talking about. Why choose a blend so outside of your range of preference that you are bound to give it a bad rating? For me, I hope that I can be like so many of the omnivores smokers who enjoy each blend for what it is and not constantly compare it to my one and only blend type, so to speak. Also, know what you are smoking.
I think the problem is the distinctions not being clear enough for people looking up tobacco.
For example, when a tobacco is put in same group as aromatics an average review reader might assume that it is similar to Molto Dolce.
On another hand, when I was ordering English blends in the past I did not expect to get Lat-bombs sprinkled with little Virginia and Orientals.
It takes a while and quite some effort to educate yourself in the ways tobacco is classified.
For example, when a tobacco is put in same group as aromatics an average review reader might assume that it is similar to Molto Dolce.
On another hand, when I was ordering English blends in the past I did not expect to get Lat-bombs sprinkled with little Virginia and Orientals.
It takes a while and quite some effort to educate yourself in the ways tobacco is classified.
Aquadoc, I think the better policy is to work on developing one's eye for finding quality reviewers rather than expecting that group to refine their reviewing processes. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect objectivity in this context. The reviewers are independent and write for pleasure, (even if they take pleasure in evening the score with a disappointing blend).
I think switching up genres of tobacco helps to keep the tongue interested. I don't think it's at all uncommon for people to reach for something very much out of their ordinary smoke.
I think switching up genres of tobacco helps to keep the tongue interested. I don't think it's at all uncommon for people to reach for something very much out of their ordinary smoke.
The key to reviews is that like tobacco we all get something different from them.
I find the straightforward, just list the facts type of reviews to be helpful. But the are boring.
I enjoy reading the ones that are well written and not only tell you about the tobacco but a story as well. The reviews I have written are meant to be informative, entertaining and easy to read and understand. They are also based on my opinions of the tobacco.
What gets me about tobaccoreviews.com is reading a 3-star review and finding myself asking "If you hated it that much, why the 3 star rating?" or vice-versa.
I find the straightforward, just list the facts type of reviews to be helpful. But the are boring.
I enjoy reading the ones that are well written and not only tell you about the tobacco but a story as well. The reviews I have written are meant to be informative, entertaining and easy to read and understand. They are also based on my opinions of the tobacco.
What gets me about tobaccoreviews.com is reading a 3-star review and finding myself asking "If you hated it that much, why the 3 star rating?" or vice-versa.
Reviews are opinionated to some degree. I mean, does anyone totally agree with all movie reviews? I have enjoyed some movies that were reviewed badly, and hated some that got great reviews. My advice would be to approach them as you would advice from, anyone who is human. I trust the reviews of some over others because I have gotten to know their tastes. Jim, Pipestud, etc... are my go to reviewers, because I am familiar with them and their style of writing and what they like. I can try a blend reviewed by one of them that sounded unfavorable, because I sort of know where they may be coming from on their negative sounding review. Or, avoid others that they do write favorably of because I know they have a preference for one of them.
But, the more I smoke, the less I turn to reviews at all. I may look to see what kind of blend a tin is that doesn't list it on the label, but all in all, now that I know what I am looking for in my smoking, I care less about what the reviews say.
But, the more I smoke, the less I turn to reviews at all. I may look to see what kind of blend a tin is that doesn't list it on the label, but all in all, now that I know what I am looking for in my smoking, I care less about what the reviews say.
I can't stand the Ernest Hemingway wannabes that can wear out a thesaurus writing a review. "It was a dark and stormy night......" :roll:
Ernest Hemingway was simple, direct, precise with his words. William Faulkner or Tolstoy come to mind as difficult to read writers, or at least more difficult. Faulkner makes me want to punch him in the face. I barely made it through my Southern lit class, because I was required to read his atrocities. Ha ha. But, in the reviews, being the jokester that I think I am at times, I do enjoy laughing at/with some of the reviewers. My favorites are the ones that everyone else hates, but I rarely go there as said above, so I am not going to be keeping these guys in business. :
:
Faulkner, damn him!
:Faulkner, damn him!
I mainly use TR.com to give me some ideas on blends I am already thinking about trying.
This usually provides me with sufficient information to determine if I am likely to get on with a particular blend or no and thus far this has largely worked for me.
For example I recently read the first ten or so reviews on a load of McClelland blends I have subsequently ordered. I have no doubts I will like them all to some extent.
Regards,
Jay.
This usually provides me with sufficient information to determine if I am likely to get on with a particular blend or no and thus far this has largely worked for me.
For example I recently read the first ten or so reviews on a load of McClelland blends I have subsequently ordered. I have no doubts I will like them all to some extent.
Regards,
Jay.
- Status