Tobacco Review Tips: a Rant...

[Perique]

I'm speaking here mostly of a popular tobacco reviews website. But my lord.... Here we go, feel free to add on to my list of tips:
- Don't review a blend after smoking it in your brand new pipe. Jesus.
- If you don't like a particular type of blend, don't freakin' review it unless you can do so objectively and rate the blend on its merits.
- Don't rate your ten year old tin that you happened to stumble across in your "cellar". Jesus...
- If your review starts with, "I don't like (insert blend type)...", then you might be a dumb ass.
- Speaking of Jesus, if your review actually mentions Jesus by name, you probably shouldn't be reviewing tobacco blends. Jesus...
- If you just started smoking pipe tobacco - I dunno... - maybe you shouldn't be reviewing pipe tobacco?
- If you can't articulate why you like or dislike a blend, don't freakin' review it! (ie- reviews with stars but no comments)
- If nicotine causes you to run to the sofa or the toilet, maybe wait awhile before offering your opinions on nicotine content. Jesus.
/ rant over /

 

[bigboi]

Man...well it does bring a little comfort to me that Jesus is doing some tobacco reviews. :nana:

 

[mp31guitar]

I stopped buying tobacco based on reviews and, stopped reading reviews. I found most blends I thought I would like, I didn't care for.

 

[pstlpkr]

:rofl: Sothron that's why I quit using that particular site.

Here's where you need to read: LuxuryTobaccoReviews.com

::
PS I forgot to add the stars once....

 

[onepyrotec]

Agreed, the blaming (or low scoring) of the tobacco when smoking in a brand new briar OR from a brand new smoker is enough to make me scream at my monitor sometimes.

 

[topd]

Ha! Interesting comments. I like reading the reviews there... some are real nice and some

make for a good chuckle during the morning smoke and coffee.

Sometimes I think how much better I could have written it.... but I'm terrible at writing reviews
go figure....

 

[Perique]

Roth, I hear ya loud and clear...

 

[lestrout]

I think Romeowood set the bar a lot higher in his great review here of Dorisco.
hp

les

 

[bubblehead33]

well said sothron and +1 les, that was a great read.

 

[brian64]

@sothron & mikephillips:
:rofl: Great comments. :rofl:

 

[juvat270]

One of my pet peeves is when the reviewer describes the tobacco in a manner that is not in any way, shape or form consistent with what the blend is and is the complete opposite of what every other reviewer described. I realize taste is subjective, but when you describe a flavor bomb like Old Dark Fired, or 1792 flake as "bland" and lacking "taste"...you're either an idiot or have lost your sense of taste and smell and don't know it.
Also, I dont want to hear about fleeting tastes that were most likely just your imagination (as I smoked my bowl of Nightcap, I could detect faint wisps of peach and peppermint in the background). Tell me about the dominant flavors that are consistent throughout the smoke.

 

[john218]

Then there are the ones who talk about the burley flavors coming through in a strictly Virginia or Vaper blend.
I love the ones who are going for the Nobel Prize in Literature and spend paragraphs comparing the blend to running through a field of daisies on a midsummer day or climbing Mount Everest or some other nonsense and saying nothing concrete about the blend.

 

[pitchfork]

I think they're just writing whatever pops into their head, hoping that someone will read their flowery (read as stinky) prose and think "My, what a smart fella, I wish I wuz jus' like him".

:rofl: I don't use the rofl smiley often, but that was hilarious.

 

[hfearly]

Also, I dont want to hear about fleeting tastes that were most likely just your imagination (as I smoked my bowl of Nightcap, I could detect faint wisps of peach and peppermint in the background). Tell me about the dominant flavors that are consistent throughout the smoke.

Well, in that case my friend, here is the Review of all Blends:
"Looked like tobacco, smelled like tobacco, burned like tobacco, tasted like tobacco".

I love the ones who are going for the Nobel Prize in Literature and spend paragraphs comparing the blend to running through a field of daisies on a midsummer day or climbing Mount Everest or some other nonsense and saying nothing concrete about the blend.

Well, you are invited to do a better job. Please by all means write a review

 

[wnghanglow]

I learned in my first week of smoking that most reviews on certain websites are blowing smoke out of more places than there mouth. Only after I smoke a few bowls I'll read the reviews mostly to get a chuckle. My favorite are the ones like " I like this aromatic, it tastes like early morning pipe to me" everyone's allowed to have an opinion, but I'm allowed to say there just plain wrong lol
Edit: Great ideal guys, everyone go find 10 of the silliest most "romantic reviews you can, we can write a coffee table book with them in it and make millions! I know I want to read some pipe poetry every now and then :D

 

[judcole]

Some reviewers aren't worth reading; some are. This applies to reviewers of books,movies, pipe tobacco,or anything else.

Find somebody whose tastes are similar to yours and check their reviews when you go looking for comments on a new tobacco. You don't like somebody's reviews, don't read them.

 

[radio807]

With a "My Lord" in the top line and a bunch of Jesus-es sprinkled throughout I wasn't sure if I was reading a rant or a prayer. That post was almost as informative as some of the reviews it targeted.

 

[Perique]

C'mon fellas, we're just having fun. Some of the reviews cry out for a good leg-pulling. If I offended anyone by taking the lord's name in vain, I apologize. Especially to you radio. You're the last guy I want to offend. Sorry you didn't find it as amusing as some of your peers.
But that said: those who have read the evangelical reviewer know what I mean!

 

[radio807]

Oh hell, Sothron, no worries. I wasn't offended, just pokin' at ya! I guess my NJ sarcasm doesn't always go over as intended.

 

[dragonslayer]

Tobaccoreviews.com got the jump and is fairly branded as the go to site for information. When I look something up I’m mostly interested in the basic facts and browse the reviews to see the keywords that mean something to me. For instance if words like Lat bomb, high vit N, more burley than Virginian appear in a good many that tells me something. The endless reviews of hay right after a spring rain, or like my grandfather are just silly. I just picked one, and this person must have some pallet for a dried weed, set on fire and the flavor of the smoke.
“Top notes are bright but never too sharp - tangerine, ginger, white grape and fresh leather, with just the right cracked-pepper highlight are at the same time developing a creamy fullness thanks to the background notes.”
WTF? And what are the flavors of the back notes? I can pick out flavors especially in a retro hale, but I must be missing out on something. I do think throwing in some creative writing is fine. I’m even ok with a little background story to go along with it. This is just one of the sentences inside a story and only about the true light. We have all read these and this is fairly mild, and of course followed by one that says it’s a Lat bomb and smells like an old shoe. I love the ones saying it’s a true Vaper, when they can read at the top, there’s no Perique and its burley.
I prefer to look at it as the comical side of the hobby, and here to stay. What the hell, it’s all about enjoyment. I read enough stories every day and can usually get the info with a quick skim.
The problem with most people not taking it serious or knowing what they are smoking is these ratings are gleamed for databases which make the data useless.
The only way to get a stable rating is with a controlled group with results filtered (weighted) through personal tastes. But where’s the fun in that. I vote for fun!