Nothing that is written in this post can be considered the final word on the subject of reviews. Nor should this post be considered my attempt to tell other people how to do reviews. NOT AT ALL. This is simply my sharing some information that was taught to me during my time as a professional reviewer and taster in the wine business, including what I was taught by a mentor who was also one of the first Master Sommeliers in the USA. It may be of interest to those who do reviews here on Snuffhouse that reviewing can simply be a matter of “I like it” or “I don’t like it,” all the way to reasonably precise, articulate, and elaborate descriptions of a snuff from all angles. However, one of the more advanced skills of reviewing, whether of wine, pipe tobacco, or snuff, is being able to evaluate a snuff on its own merit. In other words, evaluating a snuff in its own context, as the maker intended it to be, rather than whether the reviewer likes it or not, or what the reviewer thinks it ought to be to accommodate his own preferences. For example, in the world of pipe tobacco, there is a website with which many here are familiar. It is called www.tobaccoreviews.com It is fairly common for a reviewer to review a tobacco, saying something on the order of, “I am reviewing this latakia blend and although I greatly dislike latakia blends, and although I have tasted very few of them, I believe nonetheless that this is a very poor tobacco and I therefore rate it one star out of a possible four.” What I learned during my time as a wine taster and reviewer is that a wine or tobacco should be evaluated on its own merit. For example, I am not a fan of American chardonnay but I should be able to evaluate such a wine, as fine or poor based on its qualities and character as an American Chardonnay and in the context of, and according to the standard of, what American chardonnay should be or could be at it heights. I should not evaluate it as lacking just because I happen to prefer Burgundian chardonnay or pinot noir or cabernet. As a further example, I do not like menthol snuffs. But if I were reviewing such a snuff, I would be required to evaluate that snuff in the context of what a menthol snuff should be or could be according to the standards of great menthol snuffs and within the context of other similar menthol snuffs in the same class. If I were to be a proper reviewer, my own preference should not be an issue, and although I can later in the review state my preference, it should be considered secondary, as the review should focus on the quality and character of the snuff itself as the primary concern. In fact, if I do a good job as a reviewer, the reader should not be able to detect what my preferences are, unless I specifically state them of course. As I said, nothing that is written in this post should be considered the final word on the subject of reviews. Nor is this my attempt to tell other people how to do reviews. NOT AT ALL. I am merely expressing a viewpoint. Quite frankly, I don’t really give a damn how people do reviews here on Snuffhouse, as people can do it however the hell they feel like doing it. But, speaking personally, I gain much more information and knowledge from a reviewer who can review a snuff in the fashion that I have, hopefully, outline above. But that’s just me. FWIW. What are your thoughts on this subject? Should I reconsider?

What would be the best site to review the reviews?

Well articulated @fredh

Judging beer at Homebrew competitions is similar - When I once had the desire to get BJCP certified ( since dropped that goal in life, lol ) I helped at a few to see what was what - and invariable got stuck on some categories of beer I detest - real yeasty cloudy wheat beers in particular. I was fair and judged them all based on style and class - but it was a personal battle to choke most of them down - even one swallow .

@fredh‌ Nailed It! Spot on. For anyone who has read restaurant reviews and have been exposed to the acerbic, egotistical, self absorbed commentary from the likes of *Ruth Reichl (a legend in her own mind) you are familiar with the damage such a reviewer and his/her/its comments can do to a product, person or business, just so they can indulge their sociopathic tendencies: “For me to feel good, I must make you feel bad.” Fred hit it again; the difference between a reviewer and a critic. Anyone with a keyboard can be a critic and the criteria are simple. Like/Dislike. Having the ability to go beyond that requires a level of effort, skill, objectivity and ability to think outside one’s own comfort zone. I don’t like Kraft “Blue Box” Mac & Cheese. Does that mean I don’t like Macaroni and Cheese? Hell no. Menthol-Centric snuffs kill me. Same question, same answer. Sir Nigel of Abraxas is a bloody genius with menthol. Should I use a review to express my disdain or outright hatred and hostility to someone who enjoys Red Bull? No. Do I feel the need to defend my favorite snuff? Again, no. Why? To what end? I agree with Fred not only as an upstart snuff maker, but as a chef, an individual and as a fan of all things that make life more pleasant before we shuffle off this mortal coil, let’s make every attempt to be civil in our reviews, and put some reasoning and thought behind the like/dislike critique. That’s not to say some good natured humor, sarcasm and poking don’t have their place. Self deprecating humor also has a place. The purpose of a review isn’t to prevent people from trying something. It should be an aid to searching and finding one’s own personal Holy Grail, be it snuff, wine, malt whisky, barley soda, food, women, song or women. The majority of the reviews I read here are well considered evaluations of a snuff. After thorough trials, an objective examination and a thoughtful subjective like/dislike conclusion including the criteria leading to that conclusion. That should be our standard. *Ruth Reichl; after getting chased out of every restaurant reviewer job she ever had, this failed restaurateur took over the venerable fifty year old Gourmet Magazine and in less than ten years under her egotistic management, ran it into bankruptcy. Under her, staff turnover looked like a riot in Macy’s on the day after Thanksgiving; they couldn’t find an exit fast enough, and replacements tended to be recruited from the ranks of individuals in Ms. Reichl’s own image and likeness. A damn shame, that. “That’s my opinion, and it ought to be yours.” “When I want your opinion, I’ll give it to you.” Red Neckerson and his wife Nectarine; Gallatin, Tennessee

@fredh brilliantly said. I generally stay away from posting reviews on pipe/snuff blends when I know the blend is in a genre that I’m not inclined to like. The way I see it, if I already know that I’m going to have a bias or don’t have a firm fundamental understanding of the genre, my honest-to-goodness efforts to give a fair review could - unintentionally - deter others from trying a blend based on an unreliable assessment. This is a disservice to both the blender and to other smokers/snuffers.

The only time when I would find solace pointing out the negatives over the positives would be if I knew the group or person behind the product to review quite well and think their capabilities are far better (they have created better beverages, books, tobacco blends, pictures, statues, jokes… whatever) than those shown by the product in question. When facing a product of a not-so-known or rookie artist I’d point out what I perceive as their defects respectfully so the creator notices what some people consider weaknesses in their product, while at the same time pointing out its best characteristics, those that show that something bigger could have been achieved. If I fail to recognize any redeeming qualities, I’d keep my mouth respectfully shut.

I agree with you and I understand what your saying. I made wine for a few years. And in general I don’t like when others critic things they don’t like as horrible etc. For instance, I don’t like to drink sweet wine. But I know that their are plenty great sweet wines and thousands of people would never drink a dry wine. I know someone that every time he drinks a wine that is not to his liking etc. Let’s say a sweet. He would say a negative comment. And I would say, don’t say that. Say you don’t like it. Because obviously they make it for someone. If no one would drink it. They wouldn’t make it. I think what is happening on this site. And it could be I’m guilty of it as well. I would start a thread about a snuff I tried. Now, not with the intention to review it persay, but more to open a discussion. To hear what others feel about it. If this is a normal smell, feel, look, etc… So yes, when it comes to officially reviewing then their should be some instructions or guidelines. But when it comes to a discussion we usually say what we feel about something and that can lead to a positive result as well. I’ll just give you an example. Let’s say Im comletly new to snuff. And I start a thread about a specific snuff and I say it has a very strong ammonia smell. And it burns my nose. And my nose gets clogged. Or it dosnt stop running. Then the conversations start. And I’m given some guidance. And at the end I might see that this is not so bad at all. Or I might not like this one and try something else.

The first post in this topic is worth a read before you post any reviews in the new reviews section.