Tobaccoreviews.com and Why I Like Them

da'rum · Post by **da'rum** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:42 am

Tobacco reviews.com is a great site, not because the reviews are all fantastic but because the site shows how reviews are subjective and often marred by personal gripes or even effected in a postive way because of a bias to a company blender or brand. It is a place where if one spends the time he can develop a method that gives a ball park approximation on whether a tobacco you're thinking about trying is worth spending the 10 smackeroos on.
Also, the site gives the make up and sales pitch of the reviewed tobacco which saves googling each site to check the actual composition of a blend.

I look at the review count of the reviewer and more often than not there is correlation between the extremity of the opinion. The fewer the reviews the more strongly worded the review will be. Often with cliches about tongue bite directed at a certain brand. Also the fewer reviews the instance of parroting becomes more prevalent. By parroting I mean just paraphrasing what's already been said to ingratiate oneself within a community. Obviously just because one has the same opinion as the other doesn't a sycophant make but sometimes it does.

I have found that over the short time that i've been smoking pipes that it has been helpful to read reviews on a blend that I found already to be to my liking and slowly make notes on who also liked and found the same traits as me. I then look for that reviewers reviews on any subsequent tobacco that I'm curious about. Then I skip any review from a reviewer with less than 100 reviews and use those to help me in any purchase decision I wish to make.

It is a great resource because it's large and done by mostly amateurs.

Cheers.

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:26 am

Some good advice and great tips on using tobaccoreviews.com I think I shall be putting them to the test.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:08 am

X3...

Ibid d.., and the approach (based on your own likes, to follow another reviewer of like mind) has merit. I wasn't aware you could "follow" anyone but I'll play with that one...

Tx.

da'rum · Post by **da'rum** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:13 am

Oh no you can't follow but you can search reviews by reviewer.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:17 am

I see!

Said the blind man. Thanks - I finally found the "Show more search fields" link (just below the common fields). It is absolutely amazing how precise a search you can create - AND - even specify what information to show. For example I discovered that say you like a certain reviewer, and wish to see just his reviews on Virginia plug? You can do that. I'm flabbergasted.

An amazing resource! I wish I knew that trick before I bought my representative samples of the components...

*******
Note: there are actually two ways to get to a particular user/reviewer. The first is to click on "Users", then enter the reviewer's name and you'll get ALL his or her reviews. This is pretty useful and shows all his reviews and importantly the "Blend Type", eg burley-based or aromatic. The second method is to click on "Search", then "Search more fields" which among MANY other factors allows you to name not only the reviewer, but the type of tobacco, cut, flavors, taste, rating etc. This technique is much more specific.

Using the latter, here are some of the more interesting things you can search on individually or in combination with any number of other factors:

Packaging:
Contents:
Excluding Contents: (very useful in combination)
Flavors:
Cut:
Strength:
Taste:
Room Note:
Rating:
No. of Reviews:
Actual Text: (Neat!)
Reviewed by: (one or more users)
Production: (is it available)
Special Lists: (most reviewed, most recently, etc.)
Show: (you can list the columns you want to see).

Pretty amazing. For example, you can search on Virgina blends without latakia, that are mid-strength, mild taste, rated 3 or higher by Pipestud and da'Rum (same guy) that's avaiable in tins and/or bulk, and that has at least 22 reviews, ad infinitum. You get the idea. Talk about useful!

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:33 pm

A real example:

I like Burley so I searched on:

Burley based
Contains burley, cavendish, perique
Excludes Virgina
Flavors of nuts/beans, cacao, chocolate, coffee
Mild flavor
Mild to medium strength
Medium taste
Highly recommended
Currently available

Reasonable I thought. Clicked search and no returns. The perique? Eliminated, but still no returns. Widened flavor, strength and taste and - still nothing. The exclusion of Virgina? Eliminated this and - Oh no, Mr Bill! - nada. In desperation now, I widened and included "Recommended" - would this work?

Yes! Bingo! But just one return: MacBaren's Symphony. It's burley based, with burley, cavendish and Virgina. cacao/chocolate flavorings, mild to medium strength, mild flavoring, medium taste, average rating 2.5 with half the ratings at 3 or 4. Seems like this is a love/hate tobacco. If you eliminate the "I hate everything made by MacBaren" reviews, the rating is 3.1.

After that I played with removing all the listed flavors (nuts, cacao, coffee) and found another two tobaccos.

What's truly interesting is how much you can play with these catagories, either widening or narrowing the search as occurs to you. And da'Rum's suggestion - to check out the reviewers whose reviews you like or agree with is quite useful, available by clicking on the name anywhere you see it. You may learn that a reviewer has a tendency to love everything (4's) or is a whiner (1's and 2's). More data, more data.

Fun...

Very nice.

da'rum · Post by **da'rum** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:44 pm

Lol pipestud and da'rum aren't the same guy. The only place on the hyperglobalmeganet that I've subjected to my clunky reviews is this humble rum site

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:56 pm

Jes kiddin'...

Of course da'Rum is a major stud, but let me be perfectly clear: he was not and is not the famous "Pipestud". This was yet another example of my sometime vague, mild-to-medium, lightly flavoured humour. But anyone can call me Pipestud anytime, lol...

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:40 pm

Just for fun...

I dropped an email to Chuck Stanion, the head honcho at Tobacco Reviews with this question:

Moi:

"Another friend pointed out another interesting tactic, which was to search on a tobacco that we liked, thence to find a reviewer(s) whose review and tastes were similar to our own - thence to search on that reviewer to see what other tobaccos this similar reviewer favored.

But I have another suggestion that might be better yet, and that is to provide the ability or place for a reviewer to identify the "Most Like" tobacco that most resembled or was most like the tobacco being reviewed. This - along with the ability to then search or easily locate all the tobacco's that reviewers found "most like" the current review would all of us the chance to establish a group of tobaccos that most resembled our current blend."

To my great surprise, Stanion answered and quickly...

Stanion:

"Thank you for the message and for the suggestion. Right now reviewers have the option of suggesting similar blends when they submit a review, but few utilize it. The problem for us providing that as a search option is that different reviewers assign different aspects of the tobacco with different values. For example, one might say the flavoring is light and another that it is heavy, so that the same tobacco has different aspect values according to how different reviewers perceive them.

If you check out the search page, and click on “show more search fields,” (you may well have already done this), you’ll find that you can search by values that you yourself are most interested in. You may want to look for Virginia/Latakia blends, for example, that are also medium-to-strong, with caramel and blackberry flavorings, and with an extra strong room note—or any other combination of fields--to find those tobaccos that fit in with any combination of qualities you care to check out.

So if you find a tobacco that interests you, you may note the fields that most reviewers agree on and then search for similar tobaccos using those search terms. It’s a roundabout way to go, I admit, but it works. When users start utilizing the “similar to” box in their reviews more routinely we’ll be able to provide an easier link for finding similar blends, and we hope that becomes available in the near future.

Best regards,
Chuck Stanion"

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:46 pm

It gets better...

I then responded to Stanion's detailed reply, thanking him, making a webmaster's type suggestion (to require some kind of answer for "similar blends"), and finally giving him a link to this thread. His surprising answer...

Stanion:

"Hi Capn Jimbo,

Many thanks for the link and the kind comments about TobaccoReviews. I note that the technique of finding and following particular reviewers was mentioned. If you click on any reviewer’s name you’ll be taken to a page of their likes and reviews, as you know. One handy tool is the “find similar” link on those reviewer pages. The system will provide a list of other reviewers who have rated tobaccos similarly and give a percentage of similarity for an idea of how closely they rate tobaccos to your target reviewer. Our users have found that particular function pretty helpful in finding other reviewers to watch.

You have an impressive site—I enjoyed wandering through the threads and will certainly visit again. And what excellent subject matter. As an ex-bartender I found myself fully engaged.

Nice work!

Best regards,
Chuck"

It's a small, small world. And do note that we are now on a first name basis, lol...

da'rum · Post by **da'rum** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:49 am

Ah Jimbo you social butterfly. Now we are to be visited by real pipe aficionados I better tidy up and sweep the dust under the rug.