You might be a bad tobacco reviewer if:

[Anonymous]

For uniformity, Would it not be safer here on bob, for all of us to review blends say under a fixed format, Something like Kap has suggested! :scratch: :scratch:

 

[LV9]

or uniformity, Would it not be safer here on bob, for all of us to review blends say under a fixed format, Something like Kap has suggested!

Just playing devil's advocate here but who's to say that should be the standard of reviewing tobacco, I would say if we are looking for a standard it should only be smoking characteristics, flavor, room note would the reviewer buy it again or not and where was purchased.

 

[Anonymous]

LV, I am not experienced enough here to be passing comment,
I am just listening to the other more experienced guys and they are making valid points.

A formalist approach may help the less experienced guys out here!!!! and I am referring to Bob reviews here only.
I have read a lot of crap on tobacco review and if I ever was confused about baccy it was there!!!!!
I trust my fellow Brothers here and respect what they have to say. No one here has ever pointed me into a confusing or wrong direction yet!!!!!!!!

 

[LV9]

I agree 100% with you, 75% of the reviews in TR are just off the mark either we do not know how may bowls were smoke before posting the review, the experience of the reviewer etc, my comment was more in the spirit of if we make the reviews methodology as simple as possible we can try keep down the number of misinformed reviews to a minimun.
As for the reviews of are fellows BOB I also have yet to being misled and appreciate that they take the time to post their reviews on our site.

I really hope that this banter opens up a debate for a standard methodology of reviewing tobacco in our website.

looking forward to listen from all our brothers,

LV

 

[prosmoking]

While most of the one star reviews are worthless, Ive actually had a couple help me to select that blend because of the bad review.

The one star review said the tobacco (English Blend) had an after taste. The other reviews were good and I do like a smoke with a flavor that will linger, especially if I am heading into work.

The one star review said the tobacco (Virginia Ribbon) had an sweet note. The other reviews were good and I do like a Virginia with a sweet note from time to time.

In general though, the one star rating are worthless. How helpful is "This tastes like piss, run away."

And of course, for some 1 star reviewers of 4 star tobaccos it is obvious that they feel some kinda superiority if they just disagree.

 

[TallSmoke]

Maybe this ( above ) was what you were looking for Tallsmoke,,,

Yup. That was it. Thanks, Mark!

 

[Anonymous]

Grumpy old guy here says, people today want everything handed to them. Fact: Picking information out of verbal clutter is not that hard.

For an example, I love FVF, but detest Lakeland eau-de-shampoo. By reading through the reviews of each Lakeland offering, more than one or two people noticing this in a blend puts it on the "spare yourself disappointment" list. Thank you, "bad" reviewers. You've helped me, no matter what others might think of you.

Another: I like VaPers. With the important qualification that the less of the Per they contain, the better I tend to like them. Since nearly everybody seems to place these on a scale of Perique-ishness by a kind of instinct when writing about them, other peoples' tongues have narrowed the candidate list of these very effectively, whether their reviews meet somebody's standard of what a "good" one is or not.

When the mailman is bringing me something I'm looking forward to, whether I like him (or his delivery style) is an irrelevance. Same deal here.

:face:

 

[Anonymous]

Good thinking there YAK!!

 

[alfredo_buscatti]

I do read TR but think, like everyone else, that you have to be very careful about whose opinion you come away with. For instance, if 20 reviews have been posted, the first thing I look at are the average number of stars the blend has received. That to me is balanced reporting. Then I may or may not skim the review themselves, looking for monikers that I know and trust. If they say a blend is bad or good, I find my interest piqued accordingly.

 

[MisterE]

I do read TR but think, like everyone else, that you have to be very careful about whose opinion you come away with. For instance, if 20 reviews have been posted, the first thing I look at are the average number of stars the blend has received. That to me is balanced reporting. Then I may or may not skim the review themselves, looking for monikers that I know and trust. If they say a blend is bad or good, I find my interest piqued accordingly.

Agreed! I also look for the people who have reviewed tobaccos and have similar opinions to mine about them. Then I see what they have to say about those I don't know. The overall stars is a good indicator as well. Yak is right in that much useful information can be gotten no matter how the reviewer "rates" it.

Also I pay close attention to what people here on BoB have to say about tobaccos. Just by seeing what is frequently mentioned as good you get some good ideas. I definitely value more the input from people I see regularly here on this forum than that of unknown reviewers on Tobacco Reviews.

Ok guys, don't lead me astray now....

 

[Anonymous]

Just what I am saying E,
I now leave it to my brother here on BOB for reviews and opinions.
I have not been let down at all, everything the guys like here that I have tried is a winner!!!

 

[Kapnismologist]

The reviews posted here have always been very helpful to me, especially those posted by folks who are regular or long-time posters (due to the simple fact that I already have a baseline of what to expect in terms of general preferences and such like). More so than that, it is particularly useful for me when multiple folks reply to a review (e.g., "I noticed that too..."; "good point because ..."; "I have to disagree because..."; "what are you, nuts? ....", etc., etc.).

As far as TR goes, one should not always expect polished, informative, or even useful reviews. The format does not really control for that. As it is designed to be largely unmoderated, unedited, and unstructured in the first place, it is really up to the user to employ a critical eye. One is probably in well advised to take it as any informed/educated citizen might read/watch the news - that is, critically (paying attention to context, background, bias, rhetoric, etc. rather than accepting the information communicated with a wide-eyed naivete). That said, it is a great resource which I would be sad not to have access to. Plus, who else but Jon T. is going to do such a thankless job in the first place? I would compare him to Tom Dunn in this regard (i.e., solely out of love for the hobby).

 

[utahpipeman]

As far as TR goes, one should not always expect polished, informative, or even useful reviews. The format does not really control for that. As it is designed to be largely unmoderated, unedited, and unstructured in the first place, it is really up to the user to employ a critical eye. One is probably in well advised to take it as any informed/educated citizen might read/watch the news - that is, critically (paying attention to context, background, bias, rhetoric, etc. rather than accepting the information communicated with a wide-eyed naivete). That said, it is a great resource which I would be sad not to have access to. Plus, who else but Jon T. is going to do such a thankless job in the first place? I would compare him to Tom Dunn in this regard (i.e., solely out of love for the hobby).

I agree completely. I go there regularly. Just as I appreciate our freedom of speech, I appreciate that the site lets people say what they want to say. Unfortunately, just as some people use poor judgement in exercising their freedom of speech, they also sometimes use poor judgement when writing reviews. Before I wrote the original post, the thing that really got under my skin at TR was that some reviews come across as particularly mean spirited. For instance, Namecalling (unless it's done in a well-meaning way), such as referring to Greg L. Pease as "Green Little Peas," rubs me wrong in any case (politics seem to be full of it these days), but it seems even more over the top and out of place when we are simply talking about tobacco. I've tried some bad tobaccos, but I don't think I've ever been angry that I tried them.

Anyway...I've been visiting TR for years. Kudos to them for letting all of the information be public so it is easy to find out, based on a reviewers other posts, what kind of credibility you think they should have. Indeed, the site has guided me to many fine tobaccos.

 

[Anonymous]

Kap, once again, spoken like a true ACADEMIC!!! :cheers:

 

[Kapnismologist]

I agree completely ...

Well put.

It is my understanding that Jon will occasionally remove reviews which are clearly out of line (e.g., undue libel, profanity, etc.). That said, it can at times be trying to read through some of the reviews - but isn't most open, unmoderated public discourse like that?

Nevertheless, there are certain reviewers who post regularly there whose judgment on matters tobacco related I have found trustworthy in the past (I will not name names, but there are quite a few of them). I typically pay close attention to those, but often find myself taking a good many others "cum grano salis".

I suppose that in this sense freedom of speech presupposes that the reader/listener of that speech exercise the reciprocal freedom of applying informed judgment to said speech, and making up his or her own mind regarding the meaningfulness of the information communicated - hopefully through rational procedures. Like you, I am willing to slog through useless review after useless review, but at the same time I don't necessarily mind it because I have come to learn what to look for.

 

[Kapnismologist]

Kap, once again, spoken like a true ACADEMIC!!! :cheers:

Well, as you know that is a difficult mold to slough off given that it is less a vocation than a persistent existential state!

 

[Anonymous]

Kap, once again, spoken like a true ACADEMIC!!! :cheers:

Well, as you know that is a difficult mold to slough off given that it is less a vocation than a persistent existential state!

24/7 !!!!!!!! :cheers:

 

[happypipester]

To me, tobaccoreviews is a mish-mash of good and bad reviews, but one ultimately worth it.

That said, I still prefer to ask the Brothers, it's much more direct and reliable lol.

Cheers! :cyclops:

 

[Anonymous]

To me, tobaccoreviews is a mish-mash of good and bad reviews, but one ultimately worth it.

That said, I still prefer to ask the Brothers, it's much more direct and reliable lol.

Cheers! :cyclops:

exactly what I am saying bro!

 

[utahpipeman]

Today, a guy who goes by the name "p4p4" posted reviews for 3 different Pease tobaccos and used the exact same words for each one. That's a perfect example of the problem where the review isn't about the tobacco--it's about some type of personal grudge against Greg Pease. He says "Pease is a sort of illiterate blender." :roll: Ha! You can like his tobacco or not, but based on sales volume, I would have to say that's a bit of stretch.