Tobaccoreviews Site Down

[HawkeyeLinus]

It's working fine now and (edit), now it's not, lol, if you have to verify age. Different than the previous message so maybe that's progress.

 

[Chasing Embers]

I actually (used to) enjoy using it, when it was up. I am one who attempted to go to it many times over this wknd just for my personal searching. Sure, I can find some of my answers elsewhere, but it was/is a go-to.

Sometimes unreliable for blend contents, I either go to retailer sites or blend manufacturing home sites. Other than comedic value of some of the reviews, I get more from trying a blend than reading what it tastes like to someone else. It's sort of like trying to explain what steak tastes like to someone who's never eaten beef.

 

[litup]

I'm curious to hear what people use the site for and why it's worth the apparent aggravation the switch in ownership has caused. Do you actually go to read people's reviews of blends? The only thing I've used it for is as a database for out-of-production tobacco blends. Like Chasing Embers said, most of the other information I need about a blend can be found either at a retailer's site or by tasting it myself.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I'm curious to hear what people use the site for and why it's worth the apparent aggravation the switch in ownership has caused. Do you actually go to read people's reviews of blends? The only thing I've used it for is as a database for out-of-production tobacco blends. Like Chasing Embers said, most of the other information I need about a blend can be found either at a retailer's site or by tasting it myself.

I use it for one thing, and one thing only... I read Jim's reviews, not for every nuance of flavor or to see if he likes it, but to see what the blend has in it, and whether the main leaf or condimental leaf is forward or not. I also check to see if he says that the casing is obvious.
Other than that... they should just delete all of the rest of the reviews.

 

[Doctor Chopper]

I use it for one thing, and one thing only... I read Jim's reviews, not for every nuance of flavor or to see if he likes it, but to see what the blend has in it, and whether the main leaf or condimental leaf is forward or not. I also check to see if he says that the casing is obvious.
Other than that... they should just delete all of the rest of the reviews.

Hmmmm, Is the web address “JimInks tobacco reviews” still available?

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Hmmmm, Is the web address “JimInks tobacco reviews” still available?

When I had read that the site was down, I was wondering if he had access to the reviews. If so, he should just publish them on a blog.

 

[woodrow]

I'm curious to hear what people use the site for and why it's worth the apparent aggravation the switch in ownership has caused. Do you actually go to read people's reviews of blends? The only thing I've used it for is as a database for out-of-production tobacco blends. Like Chasing Embers said, most of the other information I need about a blend can be found either at a retailer's site or by tasting it myself.

I’m not a newbie, but I do like it for stats on blenders most fav blends. Being in Canada one cannot sample everything that comes down the line. Also it details what a particular blend is made of.
Essentially it’s just another tool for smokers.
(still down or wonky btw)

 

[JimInks]

When I had read that the site was down, I was wondering if he had access to the reviews. If so, he should just publish them on a blog.

I keep copies of all my reviews on file. If I could afford the expense of having and maintaining a blog, I would consider doing that since I own the rights to my reviews.

Btw, I just posted my review of Low Country Atalaya on this forum for those who are interested.

 

[Dave760]

The site appears to be back up.

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

Back to the lip-smacking reviews!

 

[rick3wood]

I like the new look of the site,looks like they are putting time and money into it

 

[litup]

Since it was brought up today, I've been looking at the site and they may have changed the look of it and made some updates but overall it's got lots of bugs. For instance, I noticed they have a nice "new blends" section on the home page:


But if you click on "see all new tobaccos" it takes you to this:


Not only is that not a list of all new tobaccos, but they have a pretty glaring typo listed too.

I decided to switch to filter search, and searched McClelland. That worked fine:

But if you click on blend type (ostensibly to re-sort by type rather than rating), it takes you back to this:

I give this web site 2 stars. Tastes bad and has no nic hit but it looks nice.

 

[Doctor Chopper]

What makes @JimInks reviews so valuable are 4 factors:

1. His incredible palate
2. His experience with tobacco
3. His writing ability, he can express the essence of a tobacco in words
4. His consistency and reliability

While I admit that I am a huge fan of JimInks, I am expressing this to make a point. So many people rely on his reviews because of the above factors and he is a known commodity. There is a solid baseline that he provides to make the review useful.

Now getting to my point finally - for any review site to be of value there needs to be some editorial process to give meaning to the reviews and easy navigation to make it useful for comparisons.

As @JimInks states above, that takes time and $$ which are not abundant in the pipe world. I am hoping for positive changes on the site to make it more valuable to all of us. It is a shame that we don't use the great reviews that many others provide due to a lack of reliability. A random opinion is meaningless, but there are many great tobacco reviews and people who take the time to give great reviews (@pipestud to name another)

When I use the site, I read Jims reviews, and then read a bunch of others to find common themes to get the best understanding of what a tobacco offers. Using this technique I personally find the site useful.

 

[Winnipeger]

I agree. @JimInks's reviews are more useful to me than the manufacturers' descriptions. When I get a new to me tobacco, I like to read a Jim review of it so I know what I'm smoking. I was smoking KBV Peaty Hunt for the first time over the weekend while TR was down. The manufacturer's description says "B. Frog’s best hunting mixture. Brown Virginia and a tad of boggy Burley to maintain stealth." I don't need to paste Jim's review here to demonstrate how much more useful it is than the manufacture's description. But from reading it, I know the blend is more burley forward and that the brown Virginia is in a secondary role and that the blend has top notes that "appear to be scotch whiskey, rum, spices, figs, and whatever else..." Much more helpful. Thanks Jim!

 

[JimInks]

I agree. @JimInks's reviews are more useful to me than the manufacturers' descriptions. When I get a new to me tobacco, I like to read a Jim review of it so I know what I'm smoking. I was smoking KBV Peaty Hunt for the first time over the weekend while TR was down. The manufacturer's description says "B. Frog’s best hunting mixture. Brown Virginia and a tad of boggy Burley to maintain stealth." I don't need to paste Jim's review here to demonstrate how much more useful it is than the manufacture's description. But from reading it, I know the blend is more burley forward and that the brown Virginia is in a secondary role and that the blend has top notes that "appear to be scotch whiskey, rum, spices, figs, and whatever else..." Much more helpful. Thanks Jim!

You're very welcome. I'm always happy to help.

 

[woodrow]

Since it was brought up today, I've been looking at the site and they may have changed the look of it and made some updates but overall it's got lots of bugs. For instance, I noticed they have a nice "new blends" section on the home page:

View attachment 259236
But if you click on "see all new tobaccos" it takes you to this:
View attachment 259238

Not only is that not a list of all new tobaccos, but they have a pretty glaring typo listed too.

I decided to switch to filter search, and searched McClelland. That worked fine:
View attachment 259244
But if you click on blend type (ostensibly to re-sort by type rather than rating), it takes you back to this:
View attachment 259245
I give this web site 2 stars. Tastes bad and has no nic hit but it looks nice.

Notice it’s very slow compared to the old one. I’m a web developer and if the viewer has to wait more than 3 seconds they tend to move along. It’s the developers curse of instant gratification.
im glad it’s working better. Project in progress.

 

[JJ_JJ_JJ_JJ]

AND its dead yet again

What a joke

A timeout occurred Error code 524​

Visit cloudflare.com for more information.
2023-11-07 18:43:12 UTC

You

Browser​

Working
Newark

Cloudflare​

Working

www.tobaccoreviews.com

Host​

Error

 

[Sigmund]

@JimInks

I dont know if you wanted to bother with it but you dont need to "Afford" to have a blog. You could very likely make money with your reviews. Your not likely to get rich but an ad supported platform would likely make you money. Its a lot of work though.

 

[minerLuke]

I too mainly used the site to read JimInks reviews on blends, not that I ever get the those little nuances of flavour that he can pull out (but sometimes!), but I find his breakdown of the components, strength and nic very useful and bang on. I also have found as an all day long smoker that I'm paying much, much more attention to Jim's classification of blends into all day, repeatable, or not repeatable except for experienced smokers. Very valuable advice for not burning your palate out on a tasty but strongish blend!

Since so many find Jim's reviews a great resource maybe this forum could host them in a dedicated sub forum or something?

 

[JimInks]

@JimInks

I dont know if you wanted to bother with it but you dont need to "Afford" to have a blog. You could very likely make money with your reviews. Your not likely to get rich but an ad supported platform would likely make you money. Its a lot of work though.

Rich I will never be, so I'm used to that. In regard to IT skills, mine are between a beet and a turnip.