Forums
We had a favorite review thread. How about the opposite?
I see no value to a review like this.
I don't object because I like OJK. I don't care if others like it. In fact it's understandable if they don't. But if you've smoked one bowl of anything of a type you're "not really into" I'd suggest your opinion is of little value.
Great thread idea! I love it.
I won’t mention names, but there are some people who have posted over one hundred reviews of various blends with over 80% rated at one star, with the remainder receiving two stars, maybe two or three with three stars.
When I see this, I can’t help but think, maybe it’s not the tobaccos that are so bad, maybe it’s you.
I´m with you. How can someone rate 80% of their reviews as 1 star and keep smoking? It seems this guy doesn't like tobacco.
Maybe seems that has a poor smoking technique. Many of these reviews speak about tongue burning and other things avoidable with a right smoking technique.
I´m with you. How many bowls have smoked the reviewer in question?, loaded the bowl and smoked properly?. These bad reviews discredit themselves when a moderately experienced smoker reads them.
Agreed! Additionally, I’ve noticed a few reviewers have multiple posts in regard to same tobacco. On one review a 1 sates rating is given, and on another a 4 star! Makes Zero sense to me.
Many smokers think that a tobacco they don´t like is a bad tobacco. It is neither fair nor helpful to others to confuse personal taste with the quality of the tobacco.
When I write a review my aim is mainly helping other smokers. I have smoked quite a bunch of tobaccos that are in my never again list. Most of them are made with good quality tobacco, well presented and blended, and it´s not fair to discredit something that I simply don´t like, but that I recognize its well done, so it´s better not to say anything because it will not be helpful and will be destructive.
Other story is when the tobacco is bad done or I honestly think it´s a fraud.
I agree completely. Even when I smoke a genre that doesn’t interest me, aromatics for the most part, I can still separate quality from junk, but I can’t necessarily tell what about them that people who are into them might find the most interesting aspect that keeps them coming back. I see no value to anyone in offering my opinion in those cases.
If it burns decently, and does what it says on the tin, I believe it's at least somewhat recommendable. If it's a a cherry aromatic I evaluate it based on what I think cherry aromatic smokers will enjoy. Not whether I personally like it or not. I don't compare it to a Pease blend, or something I personally love more than the average smoker does.
For example, I have yet to make friends with Steamworks. But I'm not going to one star and libel it. It's clearly a me problem based on a lot of glowing reviews.
I dare not give a review on here, but not for fear of ending up on a thread like this 😆
I just know I don’t know enough to render an official verdict that other people would see and find useful.
Maybe in 3-4 years 😊
Yeah well I undersrand, but if you want to write something don't restrain yourself, have fun 😉
I think people try to hard to be JimInks. It's just a comment window. Perfectly fine to add a few personal thoughts. "I liked this one. It burns well, has medium strength, leans to sweet, and tastes like an English blend should" is IMO nearly always more helpful than a treatise on ripe dark red stone fruit and fermented essence of unicorn hair.
...it does give me a (for profit) idea though. Let's see if ' ripe-red-unicorn-hair-reviews.com ' domain is taken? 😀
Ok, I LOL- ed so hard here 🤣 🤣 🤣
I personally still looking for the hazelnut cocoa, choco sweet maty earthy with pinch of stardust in my burleys. I can only taste nut and cocoa, but thats Ok for me I guess 😋
Ok this is gold 🤣 🤣
It's about Semois shag cut from Vincent Manil
This is the typical review that tells me don't even think about smoking this. So it would be very helpful for me.
😂😂😂
well he gave it a 4 ⭐️ rating. He just emphasized how bold and manly the smoke was!
I like to describe my tastes, give a brief caveat that the review is based on my personal preference, and then unleash my unfiltered opinion. I find it helpful when people review based on their taste. I.e. “I typically only smoke heavy English blends, this vanilla crap is too sweet and heavily cased” - if I’m looking for something remarkably sweet this type of review is helpful to me.
I will not name names, but there is a prolific reviewer on TR that writes entire novels in every review, many coming in more than 1300 words. This reviewer owns a thesaurus and wants you to know it by employing literally every 50¢ word in the book, even when more common vocabulary choices would better convey the concept.
This reviewer also regularly references some sort of mythical objective scoring system: "setting aside personal convictions, as I proceeded to objectively evaluate an extended series of sampling bowls, the blend’s standard presentation eventually found its established place and final grading with me. Being true to a fair and impartial approach, I will say that the trials consistently revealed both positive strengths and reduced failings overall."
Huh?
I would say I "hate read" this person's reviews, especially if it's a blend I have tried myself. Or at least I start reading them, before I tire about a third of the way through and move on. Sunk cost theory, and all.
I just skip those reviews.
They're written for the reviewer not the reader.
I'm not sure if it's supposed to impress me. But it just makes me laugh with pity at the writer.
Take it for what it is worth.
for some people the Glas is always half empty.
if someone wants to downvote basically everything…
For me it often is a fun read. I might base an idea of the person behind the sites account on it.
personally I’d rather do reviews on blends I like. The ones I don’t like, why would I spend so much time and energy to write about it?
very few reviews on a blend (let’s say 5-12+) make it either a very rare tobacco to get a hold of, or they rather suck.
then again there are tobacco hypes…
There is a reviewer that uses the word "subconrad" and "subconrading," which I have finally figured out means to describe flavors being suppressed or stepped on by another flavor (like the flavor of a base tobacco masked by a heavily-applied topping).
The first time I read the word "subconrad", I didn't have a clue what it meant, and I have been unable to find it via a google search or in any dictionary (even the hallowed Oxford English Dictionary). I've only sussed it out by context.
Is "subconrad" some sort of military slang word, or a term-of-art that anyone else has seen and can point me to a formal definition?
Never heard that one before. I think that person’s abuse of the English language may be “subconrading” his attempt to coherently express himself.
Maybe it's a hint to Conrad's "Heart of Darkness": the captain loses himself in the jungle=the virginia loses himself in the toppings...
Thank you guys for giving me PTSD about writing reviews 🤣 🤣 🤣
LOL. None of us can throw stones. My reviews are pretty much "this stuff rocks".
A post in another thread by @Happy Piping about C&D Epiphany reminded me that I had been curious to try it some years ago and then forgot about it. So I went to the reviews and the first one, while being rather funny, at the same time brought up non pipe smoking trauma from my past that set me in an off mood 🤪😂😂
When I asked for Half and Half I didn't mean...
target="_blank"
