Thought on Tobacco Reviews

I was going to hold out on this, and allow the more seasoned members to get in first, but the early bird gets the worm, so here goes.

On the already given suggestion of filtering out reviewers you don't like... I think that any filtering should be based on the quality of the review, not the like or dislike of the reviewer. Should the reviewer proceed within the reviewing guidelines and provide a fair, well though out, serious review, then let their voice be heard.

I am a firm believer in a review "form" of sorts. I feel there should be some standards. Reviews should not be done based on one bowl of tobacco. I think every review should include: Pipe being smoked, or at least shape and size. Lighting/Burning Qualities. Tobacco condition (moist, dry, could use drying, etc.) Quality, flavors, aromas in each 1/3 of the bowl. Finally, a general overview of the experience, where personal taste and opinion on the tobacco can be placed.

That about covers what I would like to see. The popular review sites I think maybe are a bit TOO free-form. Some structure to a review may help people compare and contrast a touch better.

Happy Smokin!

"The pipe draws wisdom from the lips of the philosopher, and shuts up the mouth of the foolish: It generates a style of conversation, contemplative, thoughtful, benevolent, and unaffected."

I have my problems with tobaccoreview.com.  It has been an excellent resource to me as a sometimes blender, but there are the few reviewers who probably shouldn't post a review because they have no frame of reference for a particular tobacco and admit as much in their review, or, those who use the reviews to address other issues about blends or blenders. 

This is a unique site, though.  The posters tend toward a literate discussions and humor.  I would prefer discussion of content and reaction to tobaccos, more than I like or dislike, although those comments also have merit.  If the reviewers could simply address a few key areas like taste, burn, and flavors, it would be useful.  If the reviewers could explain why they might have selected a tobacco, what pipes did they select, perhaps the circumstances under which the smoke occurred.  These factors give additional dimensions to what could be a two-dimensional review, and help the development of better tobacco blends..

"I see a bearded hero, with slouch hat and shepherd's crook, a clay pipe in his mouth. He is a Bohemian-ever a popular type of hero, and the Bohemian is to be known all the world over by the pipe, which he prefers to a cigar.

It really is difficult. Pipe tobacco is a moving target hunted by marksmen of varying inclinations & differing means. The stuff is wet/ dry, new/ aged. Pipes vary as does taste, weather, mood. Objectivity is as unattainable with tobacco as it is in quantum physics. At best we can approach a voyeuristic notion of what the experience might be like for us. Notwithstanding that, I love them. Especially the well thought out, considered ones made by pipe smokers without an alter-ego as a wine-taster.

My biggest annoyance with tobaccoreviews.com is not with the site's operation necessarily, but rather the fact that many reviewers have no idea what they're talking about. Specifically, many report that a tobacco is flavored (topped, etc.) when in fact it is not. One guy said Gawith Balkan Flake is flavored with cherry. I've smoked Balkan Flake since it was introduced, and I know it's not topped at all. I even wrote Samuel Gawith Co. for confirmation of what I already knew. I post at tobaccoreviews as bigblends. Feel free to browse my reviews. I had to correct that reviewer of Balkan Flake on the site. So sad. Others seem to think Greg Pease's Abingdon is somehow topped. Well, again, having smoked that mixture since it was released to market, I can say it's not. I even asked Greg Pease to confirm, and we had a good laugh about it.

The fact remains that if you use a pipe that has even once been used for aromatics, you run the risk of tasting that flavoring for a good while. So, yeah, smoking Balkan Flake in a pipe in which you've smoked 14 pounds of Middleton Cherry will make Balkan Flake taste like Balkan Flake and cherry topping.

All that being said (and thanks for letting me vent), I would not include a rating option for detected flavoring. People are just damn wrong when they use that rating tool on tobaccoreviews.com. Go by the blender's description of the mixture. I can't think of any decent blenders who would go out of their way to hide the fact that a tobacco has been topped with something.

Just thought of this as well: Those who dislike a style of tobacco or a particular blender should refrain from reviewing those mixtures. For example, If you don't like the ketchup smell that McClelland is known for, don't post a review about how nasty the tobacco is because of the smell. If you don't like latakia, don't  post reviews of English or Balkan blends. These types of reviews do nothing to further the knowledge base.

The only thing that bothers me about tobaccoreviews.com is when folks start off saying they hate a particular genre of tobacco and then go ahead to review one!  Duh.  Of course they're going to give it a negative review.  Such reviews should be filtered out.  Example: I should never be allowed to review an aromatic.

Likewise, pipe newbies should be noted on the review - not to discredit their opinions, but rather to allow the seasoned smoker to take their opinions about tongue bite and nicotine levels with a grain of salt.  If you still smoke a pipe in under 1/2 hour, you will of course suffer tongue bite from anything - please don't review a good VA and tell us all how terrible it bit ya ... Likewise, if you've just come over from Cigars or Cigarettes, don't tell me how weak a blend is in nicotine terms - you're used to heavy doses, not what is normal for a pipe.

How to I.D. these issues ... maybe a place where I could read a bio of the reviewer would be helpful.

This could get complicated, at least on the planning end. I dont have a problem with anyone reviewing a tobacco, even if its not their favorite genre, as long as they are objective.

Ex : Rick hates Aromatics, but I trust his opinion on taste, quality of tobacco, strength of topping, etc. I think that someone who has his experience would be fine, again, as long as objectivity was maintained.

I agree, a persons length of time as a smoker should be noted. Although, this is not always a good source of information. I have only been actively smoking for 3 months, and have been bit by a tobacco once, and it was my fault. So my "inexperience" would have no bearing on whether I got tounge bite from a bowl that I reviewed. I also happen to be a slow smoker, which is not a "normal" charecteristic for a newbie. So yes, some background info should be noted, but also a persons smoking habits, etc.

Justin

Trust me, I can't be objective when it comes to an aromatic ... you don't want me reviewing one for you.  When I say I really don't like them ... I REALLY don't like them and its taken me about 7 years of searching to find Mixture Modern ... don't even want to think about how much money I've wasted on tins of aromatics that I bought, smoked one bowl out of, and tossed (or gave away - more tossed).

Ask me about a VA?  Sure.  Burley?  Sure.  English?  Sure.  Va/Per?  Maybe - I'm not huge into perique ...

No matter how objective I would try to be ... passion would win the case and I'd write from the heart. 

Typical aromatic review: "The black cavendish was nauseatingly over powering.  The casing was sickly sweet and ghosted the pipe for weeks.  The VAs (what little of them there actually were) did nothing to add to the blend other than add tongue bite.  The burleys were cheap grade and just there as a filler.  Avoid this blend."

I tend to to use tobaccoreveiws.com for entertainment purposes only.It IS fun to see what other folks think of a blend I either love or hate and for that it's worth checking out periodically.One of the oddest phemomenons I've encountered there is how folks feel like they have to "pile on" a certain blend if the majority there reviewed it poorly as well.

It's just not anything I'd put much stock in.... If I truly want to know if I'll like a blend or not I'll just see what "brother" Rick Piatt thought of it! Our tatses are amazingly similar! : )

Best,

Dock

Should we have a tobacco review board I like the idea of "years smoking" determination. That way, should a newbie say something wierd, the understanding from the viewer would be there.
I would also like to see reviews from favorable genre's. Unfavorable reviews serve no purpose.

Why dont ya tell us how ya really feel Rick ? LOL

=o)

Justin

I don't have any idea how we would structure it so that only people that like a certain type of tobacco can review that type. While there is a certain amount of sense in not letting someone who hates latakia review some of those powerful old english blends, I can't think of any way to accurately filter things so that people only review tobaccos that are appropriate given their preferences.

As an alternative, what could be done is we set it up so there are a certain number of 'expert' reviewers here at MPC. Maybe 5 or 6 of you. Every week, you can review one or two (or less or more) tobaccos that you try. As the experts review them, they get added to the tobacco reviews section.

Once an expert review for the tobacco has been created, then 'regular' users can add their own mini-reviews to the tobacco, in the same style as tobacco reviews, but with the extra criteria of 'Years smoking a pipe' etc.

This way, we could ensure that the initial 'expert' review of a tobacco isn't done by someone unsuited for it. ie, Rick Piatt reviewing a bunch of aromatics. Also, then we can guarantee that the tobacco has been reviewed at least initially by a trustworthy source.

Downsides? The inventory won't be filled as quickly. That is, not every tobacco will be available as per Tobacco Reviews.

Upsides? Every tobacco is reviewed by a reliable source. It becomes more of a feature someone can track on the site - ie, every day, the latest few expert reviews are posted to the frontpage.

I figure that after a few months of this, most of the 'mainstream' tobaccos will be reviewed, as well as a bunch of lesser-known favorites. After a year, I bet we can have most of the blends from the top blenders done.

Thoughts?

Build a tobacco blend database. The brand name and blend name should of course be correct, but also the blend components should be correct. A blend should also be coded as to whether it's a Bur/VA or VA/Bur. This will be useful later.

When the blend database is in a "usable" state, meaning there are enough blends covered that a breadth of the spectrum is filled - reviewers plot the blends they like either through a drop down menu or something to that effect and rate each one from 1 to 10. Once 5, 10 or perhaps 15 blends are recorded, we will know what type of blends the reviewer tends to favor. With a little math we will have a weight system that can later be used to gauge the reviews made by any given reviewer.

Just a stupid thought.

Back to your regular programming.

No need to restrict who can review what via the software. Simply post some friendly guidelines that encourage folks to make reviews that exemplify objectivity and serve to further the knowledge base.

We use Brians idea... but to expand a bit... set it up like any "individuals" blog would be.

A person would submit their desire to review a certain tobacco, or tobacco's. Admin, or a few selected webmasters would then approve the review request. The review is then posted, and any sub-reviews are basically submited as comments on the blog/review post. Therefore it is not a "free for all", and the actual review is done by the poster, the comments would be the individual experience of other users after they have tried the blend.

Thats all I got.

An accurate general category to identify blends Bur/VA as to VA/Bur.

The ability to associate one or more tobaccos from a list {Red Virginia, Bright Peidmont, Kentuckey Burley, Drama etc.

Cut being flake, ribbon etc.

Brand, blender, cut, general category, associated leaf/s, Vitimin N and all attributes are able to be queried thier being in separate fields or tables, with the eventual goal to replace the TobaccoCellar.org db that hasn't been updated since 1850 basically a project from hell.

I would certainly find time to contribute to the project also.

A lot of work would go into making a system like that, so obviously I will offer my help anywhere I am needed.

More than willing to help in whatever way I can.

Give me a shout and let me know.

JB