Reviews Censored?

[foggymountain]

I got a can of Moulin Rouge from Pipes & Cigars. I hated it. I wrote a review on their site that said "not good" etc. They did not use it. Can't say I blame them, but that is cheating. So much for the value of online reviews on seller's sites.

 

[peckinpahhombre]

In order for them to use a negative review, you are required to buy a bag of an Esoterica blend from them.

 

[reichenbach]

And praise expedient shipping. Not sure if those are all real reviews or not. Just saying.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I'm not sure that a review that said whether someone loved it or hated it would help me. We all have different tastes. I've heard hundreds of people rave about Frog Morton with hardly anyone saying anything negative about it, and I didn't like it. I look for clues about casings, heavy latakia, or too much perique, something that goes beyond the often times weak product descriptions.
However, they do include a lot of reviews that say, "loved it, bought a ton to cellar." So, why not put one that says that someone hates it. If they're going to use one useless review, why not another?

 

[mso489]

Not all blends earn the top stars in ratings, so some negative reviews or at least ratings are being let through.

But it is buyer beware. I don't think the reviewing and rating practices at retail sites are regulated in any way,

and maybe they shouldn't be. But you can't swallow the rave notices whole.

 

[judcole]

We all have different tastes. I've heard hundreds of people rave about Frog Morton with hardly anyone saying anything negative about it, and I didn't like it.

I'm another one of those, Cosmic. Tried two different varieties years ago, didn't like either one, don't intend to try any more.

I will frequently mention those blends to folks first trying latakia, with a qualifier such as: I don't care for these blends, but a lot of guys find them good introductions to latakia, so you might like them.
And as to the OP: I would never buy any blend based on reviews found on a retailers' web site. Was yours couched in objective terminology - did you say something useful - or did you just say you didn't like it? That could make a difference.

 

[sfsteves]

There are any number of 'reviews' that are negative and/or consist of less than glowing praise ... plus, any time a review is done, it is reviewed before appearing on their Website ... I've submitted about a dozen or so reviews to them and several were not used, even though I was NOT critical or negative ...

 

[cigrmaster]

foggy, it is obvious to me that they just don't like you, and who can blame them. I mean after all, you only buy Dunhill pipes, expensive Savinelli's and a multitude of Dunhill tobacco's. You obviously have shitty tastes in pipes and tobacco's so who wants to listen to you? :nana:

 

[rmbittner]

foggymountain: To be honest, I wouldn't expect the creator of a blend to include negative comments on their own Web site. It's their Web site; it's there to promote and market their products, and anything that detracts from that would naturally be anathema. They aren't under any obligation to provide a balanced forum for opinions that run counter to their business plan.
The good news, of course, is that we have at least one completely objective site where reviews can be posted: TobaccoReviews.com. But I also think there's certainly room for negative critiques of a blend here -- even a blend by one of the site's sponsors -- if it's reasoned and well-argued. (I know I've been open in the past about my personal dislike for a particular sponsor's product and didn't suffer any repercussions or deletions, as far as I'm aware.)
Bob

 

[mso489]

... love the self portrait, foggy!

 

[hfearly]

Hey those folks are running a business selling tobacco. Can't sell stuff with negative reviews. Can't blame them.