I was on the Tobacco Reviews site today and thought of this post in the way Jeff Foxworthy would do it. For instance:

If 28 of your 38 reviews are one star ratings, you may be a bad tobacco reviewer.

or

If a tobacco has a 4 star rating with over 300 reviews, but you give it one star because it "is tasteless, low-quality, harsh and burns hot," you may be a bad tobacco reviewer.

I'm sure there are many more.

Hear, hear.

Most of them are bad reviewers, really. People reviewing something in a genre they don't like are obnoxious too. For example, I would never review an aromatic unless I had something meaningful to say about it and unless you consider Reiner Long Golden Flake to be an aromatic I don't have anything to say about that sort of tobacco.

Thankfully, there are plenty of gems out there. Not everyone is as obviously stupid as a lot of these reviewers.

I dont usually smoke Latakia mixtures.. Pirates Cake/Penzance/Odyssey sucks..

I am a Va/Per smoker of the highest degree, I sleep eat and live Va/Per.. This aromatic sucks..


Of Late my beloved 965 has been discontinued, I am on a quest to find a replacement.. Golden Burley with a hint of Vanilla, you are not 965, 1*

I hate McClellands, McClellands 2100 sucks just like the rest of them, no where near as good as the worst GL Pease product..
followed by..
McClellands 2100 is all I ever smoke, its the bombdiggity..
not really followed by but hid in another tobacco..
I hate MacBaren, Golden extra sucks just like the rest of them, no where near as good as the worst Sam Gawith tobacco..

and two of my absolute peeves, makes me want to bang someones head on pavement, slip their face up on the sidewalk corner and crush their skull with my steel toes until their eyeballs break.... 1* Placeholder... & one word 'reviews' namely the absolute insanity found in almost every review somewhere "Placebo".. WTF is that anyway???


It'd help 1000 times over if guys would give an honezt review for the product they are supposedly reviewing... I'm going to shut up now.. the rest of the boards heard me bitch about it enough...lol

I think a lot of them are long winded. I saw one at Tobacco Reviews where the person had written his whole review using words starting with the same letter. The WHOLE thing. Pretty innovative for sure, extolling the virtues of said brand. I like the "it's good, kinda like ______ (insert tobacco name), I'll buy it again or not, and I recommend it or not" style. The subtleties of the blend, toppings, or casings is very subjective and for the most part not very helpful.

You might be a bad tobacco reviewer if:

you've formed your opinion after smoking one bowl (in one pipe)

you bitch about a blend not being the same as you remembered 30 years ago (who the hell has that good of a memory)

you complain the blend is too wet in the tin (well dry it out to your preference dummy)

whine about the price

You might be a bad tobacco reviewer if:

You're so overcome by metaphorical usage, like "this blend is like riding on the Orient Express, with naked girls on my arm" etc., etc., that you completely omit the blend specifics and do not refer to the actual smoking experience at all. You are wasting TR space. Go show off your puerile penchant for purple infantile prose elsewhere.

you might be a bad tobacco reviewer if...

You're description includes your day's activities in it's entirety, as sort of a prelude to your tobacco review, as well as the weather conditions, the amount of yelling your wife did, and your overly sophisticated/stuck up taste buds.

Here it is. I found this one on tobaccoreviews.com a few months ago:

[i]Perfunctory Pontifications on Peterson's Perfect Plug:

Pry open the Package and Peruse a Plug in a Plastic Pouch. Pull open the Pouch and Participate in the Pleasant Perfume of Prunes and Produce Past its Prime, which Portends Potent but Pleasurable Paroxysms of Pleasure.

Peterson's Paleolithic Plug is so Petrified that it Pleads to be Pulverized Prior to Packing in your Pipe. This Perplexing Plug - as Pitch-black as a hockey Puck - Packs Prodigious Potential for Piping Pleasure but must be Properly Prepared with Pocket or Paring knife. Puny Pieces the Proportions of Peppercorns are still too Prodigious for this Potpourri of Pleasure (from my Perspective).

Once Packed, it is Particularly Prone to Punching like a Pugilist if Puffed too Powerfully. If it Punishes the Proboscis when Puffed Proactively, Pampering Peterson's Perfect Plug will Pacify and Please the Palate. Puffed Placidly, it Pleases with a Palpable Pungency and Pleasurable Piquancy. It will Positively Perk up the Piper who is Pooped and needs a Pick-me-up. There is no Paucity of Punch in this Pastiche but Plenty of Plaudits are due for the Plenitude of Panache.

While Puffing, the Perfume in the Parlor is Pungent and not Particularly Pleasing. Its Performance in the Pipe may be Problematic but Peterson's Plug Pays for any Problems by its Palliative Properties. No Parsimonious Plug, Peterson's Pushes the Piper Past Pedestrian Practices, into a Perspicacious Protocol that Pays off with Pandemonium in one's Piehole.

Pedestrian? No. Pusillanimous? Never. Palatable? Positively!

The Prudent Piper will Procure some Peterson's Perfect Plug Posthaste.
[/i]
Entertaining for sure....

Out of idle curiosity :

BabySinister wrote:

You might be a bad tobacco reviewer if: You're so overcome by metaphorical usage, like "this blend is like riding on the Orient Express, with naked girls on my arm" etc., etc., that you completely omit the blend specifics and do not refer to the actual smoking experience at all. You are wasting TR space. Go show off your puerile penchant for purple infantile prose elsewhere.

With reference to the little ditty at the top of
http://www.brothersofbriar.com/reviews-f15/ode-to-embarcadero-t8404.htm
and the longer TR re-post toward the bottom of it :

There are currently 40 reviews of Embarcadero posted at Tobacco Reviews.

I.e., the one just cited and 39 others.

1) How many of these (take a guess) mention "blend specifics" ?

2) Why are these even (in your opinion) necessary, given that the "blend specifics" are listed at the head of the page as a prologue to the reviews themselves ? Are they there for you to ignore ?

3) Could there be even an outside chance that imagery like "riding the Orient Express with naked girls on my arm" might be the closest parallel in experiences readily imaginable to people who aren't you to what smoking it is like ?

4) After the first half-dozen or so times, do you really want to keep reading "this is a broken flake" again and again and again and again and again and again and again ?

5) If not, why is this a requirement ?


WASTER OF TR SPACE
PURVEYOR OF PUERILE PURPLE PROSE & POETICS
OCCASIONAL SHIT-DISTURBER

I love and hate that site for all the reasons mentioned above. It's why I have never put a review on there. I think it takes a little more skill than I have. Some of the reviews are awesome reads. Most leave me wondering.

Someone (Kap?) posted some good criteria for reviewing tobacco here on the Bob a short while back. Wish I could find it again.