What makes a good and readable review?

[eggopp]

I prefer video reviews..

Me too coz you get to see the thickness or not, of the smoke and see how it burns for yourself..

[mb55317]

I prefer video reviews..

[snooky]

The best review is the one which makes you want to print it out, roll it up and light it!!!!

Thats it for me too, it will make my mind up either ive got to buy some or put it last on the list, also i like to know the cigar being reviewed has been given a fair test and not a one off smoke.
The template we use is ideal.

[Paulie]

The best review is the one which makes you want to print it out, roll it up and light it!!!!

[cj121]

I think thats the key. A review split into sections allows a reader to consider each bit in turn and, to an extent, weight the review in favour of the categories which they feel are most important. The first three categories I use are descriptive - big veins are big veins whoever you are and demonstrate that there has not been a lot of care in selecting the wrapper. If it burns crooked and draws like molten lead through a narrow straw then it is a sign of poor construction. If that doesn't matter to you, then in a categorized review you can put less emphasis on that score.

Of course, it all depends on the purpose of the review... To provide a guide and perhaps inform purchases, then a categorized and scored system is likely to be best. To log smoking experiences and perhaps provide a readable interest piece, then an 'open' style account is likely to hit the spot a little better.

By Jove, you've cracked it there Simon: both styles have their time, place and function A hybrid of the two would therefore be the ideal

[Simon-JG-hr]

Re:What makes a good and readable review?

I think thats the key. A review split into sections allows a reader to consider each bit in turn and, to an extent, weight the review in favour of the categories which they feel are most important. The first three categories I use are descriptive - big veins are big veins whoever you are and demonstrate that there has not been a lot of care in selecting the wrapper. If it burns crooked and draws like molten lead through a narrow straw then it is a sign of poor construction. If that doesn't matter to you, then in a categorized review you can put less emphasis on that score.

Of course, it all depends on the purpose of the review... To provide a guide and perhaps inform purchases, then a categorized and scored system is likely to be best. To log smoking experiences and perhaps provide a readable interest piece, then an 'open' style account is likely to hit the spot a little better.

[cj121]

With that one too personally Dave. It's hugely subjective: taste, aesthetics et al that a descriptive bash at what turned one on, or off about a smoke does much more. However, universally recognised scoring systems do give indication about what might be expected in a particular cigar (?)

[daverave999]

Re: What makes a good and readable review?

I just write it as it is, no scores just like having a conversation with someone..

Totally agree. For something as individual as aesthetics and taste, scoring just seems pointless. If it's not reproducible between reviewers, what does it actually mean?

[eggopp]

I just write it as it is, no scores just like having a conversation with someone..

[Simon-JG-hr]

Still not as good as a decent Bordeaux though...

[Maxi-J]

Simon those videos are great! I think I've probably stumbled by the CA website a few times in the past, but for some reason I've never really seen many of their videos. I'm a borderline religious follower of the Friends of Habanos video reviews. Not only do these guys really know their smokes, but they tell you the story behind each stogie in a way that's both laid back and informative. There's always an interesting shot/comment on the tipple they're pairing with the smoke and you can pick-up some good tips there, too. Seems they too enjoy a few glasses of Kangarilla Road Shiraz. Well, they make it!

[r0lan6]

Great link! Just watched both videos, and are providing me with a much clearer picture as to how to appropriately rate a cigar.

[Simon-JG-hr]

I started using that system as I liked the way which it structured a review. It also means that people can judge your thoughts based on their specific preferences.

For example, I might give a cigar 23/25 for flavour and 15/25 for smoking characteristics. Now, I'm the sort of person that, no matter how good the flavour profile is, will be nothing other than annoyed if the cigar draws badly or keeps going out. Some people are content to suffer this, claiming that flavour is the be all and end all of a cigar. It helps to put the overall impression into focus a little bit.

Any cigar smoking experience will be, to a greater or lesser degree, a subjective experience, but I feel that this system adds as much objectivity to the process of reviewing as is possible.

I particularly enjoyed CA's videos on how they rate cigars, it is how I tend to go about it. I have linked to these videos at the end of my slightly more detailed thoughts on 'the reviewing process', click here.

[matt day]

I read the Romeo No.1. review from mattday - it is the first review he has written and I thought it was great. I have been smoking hand made cigars for over 25 years but have never written a full review (just comments and observations).

So just what does make a good review? mattday had his own points scoring system - some reviews test my short attention span - Does anyone have a template I could use to write a review.

nothing to do with me i just borrwed it from other reviews as it seemed 2 be a standrd thing used

[r0lan6]

Good to know, thanks!