MODERATOR'S NOTE: THIS COMMENT WAS SPLIT FROM A SEPARATE THREAD. ALAN DID NOT START THIS THREAD.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see (on a quick sample), the editor ratings don't have any impact on the total user ratings (which are compiled from all the reviews EXCEPT that of the editor).

You are correct. Thus, we view the opinions of the multiple user reviews of higher importance when ordering them.

However, the editor's review is still at the top, and separated from everyone else's. A person casually perusing reviews might only read the editor's reviews and consider them to be the expert reviews, or the cream of the crop, the best authority we have to offer. When I first noticed that separation it annoyed me enough that I stopped bothering to do reviews, except for MoL and WW, which were gifts with the request that I review them (not gifts from DP, though). I liked it when the most recent review was at the top, no matter whose it was. Or the highest rated review would work too. Having yours separate really rubs me the wrong way.

Sorry you feel that way.

However, it's not just my review that can take that place. There are several people who can submit those separate reviews. It's just that it seems like I'm the only one who's actively adding them. We were all chosen based on our experience in doing formal reviews.

I'm not going to debate my relative merits as a reviewer, or the value in having an editor/expert's review, as I don't want to come off as egotistical, and I think my rap sheet speaks for itself.

I was asked to become the review editor and others thought it a good idea to have a separate review. I accepted. I like doing it, and I think it provides additional value to those reading it. A good example would be the impact that the editor's review had on sales of LTV.

It's not a pissing match. We're trying to inform absinthe consumers. That's it.

I've never let that bother me. All I ever do to assuage my oh-so-fragile ego () is refer to the percentage of my reviews that people have found helpful, and that's all the impetus I need to keep reviewing new absinthes, as I try them.

*shrug*

I just think that having one review spotlighted, especially if it's almost always one person's, is not compatible with the concept of trying to get the general community's thoughts by accumulating as many reviews as possible. I would feel that way if it were my reviews being spotlighted, too. It might not feel that way to everyone, especially those who weren't doing reviews before that was put into place, but it seems totally screwed up to me. It feels less inclusive. No matter what the intention, it has the appearance of "this review here at the top is more important than the rest."

But the order of ranking should assuage that, unless you really choose to take offense.

Aha!

You're some kinda Commie/Socialist, ain't ya?


Seriously, though, I really am more than a just a tad sick of the "egalitarian" nature of our "reality" world, in which every Tom, Dick, Harry (and the female equivalents) all get their fifteen minutes of fame...if Brian was dedicated enough to devote a large chunk of his time to review all those absinthes, one should assume that he also developed his absinthe palate that much more fully, and, having a pretty solid grasp of adjectives, would also, consequently, have been well equipped to translate his gustatory impressions to "paper".

Bottom line...he deserves recognition, and said separation is simply a designation of that.

The review editor getting a distinct, separate set of stars before the community's consensus disturbs me, too. I just don't think there should be a separation at all. I don't really care how the reviews are listed or ordered, just that they should all be grouped together, equally.

Picking people out for their experience at tasting is ridiculous. There could conceivably be exceptionally experienced people that none of us know about writing reviews now or in the future. I thought the point of having an overall review consensus was to look at inexperienced, experienced, and everything imbetween because all views are useful to someone. Picking someone out as separate-but-equal-to-all-the-rest-combined (that's how it looks, at least) is ugly.

I just hate it. I don't know when it started but I first noticed it not long before I did my last two reviews and it made me ill. I don't know why I didn't say anything before.

I care a hundred times more about the community aspect of WS than the other parts, so that may be why I feel the way I do about this and other things.

Oh, and Brian, I don't think I need to say this, but I probably should because of the flack you often take: this has nothing to do with you personally. I just think this aspect of the system really, really sucks, and makes it feel less credible to me, not because I think your reviews are not credible, but because of the reasons I stated.

And those people would be recognized and possibly even asked to be part of the editor review section at some point.
That most certainly is the point. A point made even easier to the newcomer by separating out one review that is known to be from an experienced palate. That can help to put everything else into perspective.


I feel the complete opposite. Especially given all of the feedback we receive regarding the reviews and even their separation. Based on the feedback, it has all but cemented the credibility. To be frank, there are very few veteran absintheurs who can be bothered to post more than a couple reviews a year.

Ah, now I see the problem tonight, and, of course, it's mine.

At heart, I'm an elitist SOB, and my beverages of choice this evening seemed to have affected the area of my brain that controls those feelings...nonetheless, since I'm still under the influence, I won't apologize for said elitism.

I have chosen not to submit reviews for the reason that I have tasted very few (4, to be exact) absinthes and thus feel that I have an inadequate point of comparison. I would likely give La Clandestine a bunch of fives, but such a rating comes from my very narrow range of experience and would not be helpful to others. This led me to wonder: how much "experience" does one need in order to be able to do a credible review?

Yeah, my percentage got killed by the publicity team for LTV and a couple of the other Czech absinths. those are the only ones that get low percentages of approvals.

Okay, I guess it's an agree-to-disagree thing again.

My mind isn't changed but my piece is said so I'm moving on.

The system is set up to where you don't need any real experience to utilize it effectively. If you base your ratings criteria on the information provided on the review sheet and instruction page, you too can be an expert reviewer!

I totally appreciate your position. But with the overwhelming percentage of feedback being positive, it's hard to make a change based on just a couple of dissenting opinions. No offense intended, of course.

It is kind of funny how this thread evolved from coloration criteria to the merits of an acheivment based recognition for reviews and it's efficacy or lack thereof.

In other words, it kind of sucks to receive a vote of no-confidence, even if it's from two people.

"Yeah, my percentage got killed..."


I know, Brian, and that's why I would never have gone out on a limb, and subjected my aforementioned oh-so-fragile ego to such an unjust raking over the coals.

Well, for me it was connected because I disagree with you on how you rate blanches, and since your reviews are spotlighted your approach may look like the correct one, instead of just your personal approach. I wouldn't have felt so strongly about how you personally deal with one aspect of blanches if your reviews were just part of the pile like everyone else's. That's how a small quibble became a bigger one to me. But the "Editor's Review" and Editor's Rating thing has pissed me off for some time now. It ruins it for me, no matter who is doing them.

My approach doesn't matter much given my reviews of blanches differ so slightly from the composite reviews.


Sorry to hear that. But it seems to be the best option to put forth, for reasons already discussed, as well as others. It was actually a point proposed by another board member and agreed by all of the others.

I understand a bit about how you think, based on previous discussions, so I get where you're coming from. But in my mind, I don't find it objectionable to recognize the extra efforts put forth by people by placing their comments a bit more in the spotlight, especially if there is merit. And that's not just because it's me in the spotlight this time. I'd support the system, regardless of who was in that spotlight, as long as their reviews were respected as knowledgeable. I feel recognition is a great motivator. I know that one of the only reasons I take time out of my schedule to post more reviews is because I feel like it's a responsibility for me to do so.

The above paragraph is only one small reason why I think having an editor's review is important. Keep in mind, websites like Cnet and other tech review sites have the same system. It lends a lot of credibility.


But let's get back to the coloration discussion. Peridot, how many vertes would you score a 5 in color?

Aw, c'mon, Brian...everybody knows the first commercial release of Jade Edouard was the only true "5" in the verte color department.

Does the board disagree on much? I'm not being an ass, I just want to know. It would be cool to have a little clearer idea what the board does and when a decision is made.

That's funny; I used to feel a responsibility to review whatever I had available because I wanted the review section full and for it to be useful. You might remember that the day that the WS review system was put in place you and I were the two people spending the afternoon just digging through everything we had to get started filling the review section. I don't feel that responsibility now because I don't think that it needs any reviews but the Review Editor's. There's that review with emphasis, and then the rest without any. Screw putting in the effort to write anything if that's how it is. Not that I have anything on hand that I haven't reviewed already.



I don't know. I'd have to look at my previous reviews. I think I've given a 5 a few times but I don't remember. Again, my thoughts on why a blanche should be scored a 5 if it is perfectly clear and debris-free are based on a different approach than yours or Ron's. In a review I don't consider the whys and hows of the colouration procedures and whatnot. I only consider what's in front of me, and if the appearance cannot be improved upon for the style, then it gets a 5, period. I'll also give a 5 to a beautifully artificially coloured absinthe if it looks natural, even if I intellectually am aware that it is artificially coloured from previous conversations or research. Making vertes is harder, and getting a good colour is difficult. But if they also tend to be more flavourful and get better marks in other areas than blanches. Ultimately, unless there are two different templates for rating these styles I just have to score the way I do.

I don't have difficulty handing out 5's if I believe they are deserved, whether or not in the future something could conceivably come along that is even better. When you get up into that sort of stratosphere the difference, especially in a system that only gives you a five-point range for every category, isn't significant enough to matter. Is that dude over there as smart as Einstein or as smart as Oppenheimer? From our standpoint it's too close to matter. So the difference between two things that got a 5 isn't significant even if one is slightly better.

That's not what it is. I have a disagreement with how it's run. It's not about "attention," it's about usefulness, and I believe the average, casual reader will only read the Editor's Review. Because when I read music/ booze websites with that sort of setup I just read the staff review. I don't feel bad about that; that's the dynamic set up on those sites. I have always viewed it differently here. It's not spite. It's like "what's the point?"

i.e. the Editor's review will get 'more attention'.

Well, from the feeback I've received, you'd be incorrect in that belief.

You're only hurting the Wormwood Society by not posting your reviews. Since it's reviews from everyone else that determines the placement of each brand in the top picks list.

Okay, attention. But it's not personal attention. I feel that if there's just a big pile of reviews I dig in and read a bunch, and if there's a staff review plus user reviews I generally just read that one because that one is the one with authority.

I understand that might be what you do, but it's not what people who are researching what to buy (or stock on shelves) do.

When I truly want to buy something, even on Amazon for instance, I read all the reviews. I read the product description from the manufacturer, the editor's review, and especially the consumer reviews. And I actually make a point of reading the negative consumer reviews first.

I'm sure the approach to reading reviews varies from consumer to consumer, but I wouldn't discount the idea of having an editor's review. I think it's useful, and more often than not, is patently unbiased, unlike some consumer reviews will be. There's a bit of editorial responsibility that some consumers don't and won't use. For instance, I read a review on the WS yesterday that listed a very highly regarded absinthe as "overrated." I believe reviews like that are biased, and thankfully that's not the first review people see when they land on the product page.

While I understand your opinion, Peridot, it is my opinion that there is value to an editorial review. I believe that is why so many other review and commerce sites use them. Check out the Whisky Exchange. Here's a random whiskey I pulled.

I can't take that request seriously with the current system. That's how I used to feel about it before this was implemented, but not anymore.

When the WS review system was first put in place I blew through everything I had to try to help Brian get the ball rolling on it and start building up something cool. I really cared about having a good, full collection of reviews. But this runs completely contrary to that in my opinion.

That's a shame, since you have great input. I actually need to start adding reviews. I only have one up there and I feel guilty about that!

I already told Brian this in a PM but I want to make it clear here that I'm not such an arrogant loser that I think some sort of stupid boycott will change the current system. I'm not holding out until I get my way; if I'm the only person who feels that having the Review Editor's reviews separate is bullshit, then I'd feel really awkward if I logged on tomorrow and saw it was changed (I know it's not going to happen, just speaking hypothetically). I'm just trying to voice how I feel about it and make sure it's not misconstrued. I'm not trying to be loud, just clear.

Of course I can't presume to speak for everyone here, but I certainly don't think that of you, man. You're respectable, honest and civil. Really can't ask for better compatriots here.

FWIW, I like Brian, but I really think having a separate "Editor's review" is not good (actually I hate it). It makes it appear that Brian's review is so much more important than that of everyone else.
Just my .02

**edit**
Let me add to this. When the "editor review" feature was discussed several months ago amonst the Advisory Board, I remained silent. I did not want my opinion as an absinthe producer to have undue influence on how the WS is being run. I should have said something of my hating the idea of an "editor review" at the time during the previous discussion. I don't think it would have made a difference regarding the decision, but my voice regarding my dislike of the "editor's review" would have been noted. When Brian said that the Advisory Board was good with adding the "editor's review" he was making a statement that was true as far as he could know. I apologize if anything I have stated would leave one with the impression that Brian was speaking untruthfully.

Personally I like having an editor's review at the top of the page. I think it gives people looking for absinthe a degree of substance for a 'base' review. Idiosyncrasies found by the other reviewer's can supplement and in fact be of equal importance. Likewise, I'm sure the vast majority of people are going to look at most of the reviews submitted by non-editors as well.

I've had a few friends get into absinthe and they've made good, informed decisions based entirely on the reviews here. As mentioned, there are flaws with any review system but this tells me it's doing its job quite well.

I can't believe I'm still at a 100% 'helpful' ha ha ha

Love this forum ... 127 messages about this...

two thoughts....

1. COLOR - For what it is worth, making spirits clear is not that trivial and not just collecting 'hearts. It is a lot more than that. In fact, I could argue that coloring and bottling in dark bottles hides many 'imperfections'. Clear bottle with crystal spirit is like being in a pair of speedos on the beach. Nowhere to hide. I produce Eau De Vie's, Gin, Vodka, etc and let me tell you - I prefer places I can hide any flaws, turbidity, floaties, dust etc - Oak, sugar, dark bottles, etc. You can rectify later, cold filter etc, but then you affect /lose flavor. So getting things perfectly 'clear' is lots of precise work.

2. EDITOR REVIEW - I personally like having an impartial editor review - regardless of accuracy. As long as it is impartial and fair. Based on my limited review, Brian has done an great job and clearly explains why he rates the way he does. Others could all be biased for one reason or another. So keep up the good work and no need to change.

In fact, I could argue that having a discrepancy between reviews sparks my curiosity. Also, editor that is inaccurate will fall on own sword sooner than later so it is self regulating.

No, Brian's reviews are not the only ones that are accurate and unbiased. The system is designed to make you think they are, but they're not.

This is what I'm talking about. This is why I have such a problem with this system. It creates a false perception that is insulting to the community in general.

While that is true in theory, it's not in fact. There are plenty of biased reviews that come through that skew results. Some are obvious enough to be taken down within a couple of hours. Others take several hours worth of research to find the true source, which then can be taken down. Others are obviously partial, but shouldn't be taken down, because they are the true feelings of unassociated consumers who just have their own biases. Some are brand plants, but we'll never know because they are well disguised.

Yes, there are many members of the WS who are knowledgeable enough to post very well thought out reviews. But an average consumer looking at reviews won't know which is which, especially if that reviewer has only posted a couple of reviews.


That's bullshit, and it's offensive that you would even claim that.


I posted this example in the Admin area, and will post it here too, since I think it's worthy of discussion:

Do you feel that way about sites like CNet? Cnet.com is literally 'THE' place to go for reviews of anything electronic, from phones to cars. They have user ratings and editor ratings. They even go so far as to have a whole other section of 'Editor's Top Picks'. They literally have millions of people reading reviews every month.

To me, modeling a system after one of the most respected review sites on the net does nothing but lend the WS more credibility.

Peridot, do you feel that one of the most respected review sites on the net has designed a system to make you think all of the consumer reviews are biased and that the millions of reviewers are being insulted by having a tech nerd with tons of experience be able to have an 'Editor's Review' as well?

I wouldn't be so concerned with it if we had several dozen reviews for each product. The biased reviews would get lost in the real ones and rendered irrelevant. But right now, there are very few products that have more than 5 reviews. Some have 1. I think it's smart to have a 'reliable' opinion posted now, based on the lack of other reviews.

A normal consumer wouldn't see 'Peridot' as a consumer review and find it any more reliable than 'JoeBloeLTVfan'. They don't know you and your level of experience. So in a situation where there might only be one consumer review, the reader might be misled if it's a favorable review from some thujone munching donkey who doesn't know any better. However, if they saw the consumer review, then saw a diametrically opposed 'Editor's Review', it might give them pause, or at least a second opinion they can rely on as being vetted.

Uh, I like CNET, but that's not my "go to" site. I think they're way beyond Mossberg and Wired, but they're biased. Less so than PC Magazine who caves to corporate ad buyers, but any half-decent tech person can point out the flaws on their site.

I mainly use them to see the trends for uninformed tech wannabes, and software downloads that I can't pull from better and more accurate sites.

I have to say, I don't understand where you are coming from with either of these two statements. Why on earth would we design a system to make people think Brian's reviews are the only ones that are accurate and unbiased? How can that possibly make any sense from any reasonable perspective?

How is the system insulting to the community? We have a system that allows anyone to openly disagree (or agree) with a notable authority. Everyone has the opportunity to express their opinion no matter how experienced they are. How can you possibly misconstrue that to be insulting? Only because the acknowledged editor's review is first? Or that it simply comes with the title of Review Editor? There is nothing insulting about it.

Sorry, Peridot but I strongly disagree with you. You know absinthe and I believe you are a credible source for what absinthe should be and taste like but these statements are simply wrong.

Exactly. If that were the case, then we could only list the editor's review and not have consumer reviews.

Well, I've got a lot of thoughts about a lot of this, but unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) I haven't had the time to even read the thread, let alone respond, until last night. This is one of the busiest weeks of the year for booze sales, and the only reason I'm posting this now is because I'm feeling too sick to leave the house yet (been sick all week). Will join in with my thoughts later, but for now as P'n"B said over at Ben's place;

Booze merchants unite
Duty calls you to service
The world is thirsty

Yes they are. Now to patch myself up, and get out there for one more ass kickin' day of sales.




BTW, no problem here with the separation of "Editor" and "Consumer" reviews.

It's pretty much what I've been saying all along. And then someone came along and verified it.


Their site is much more massive than this one and has an entirely different atmosphere to it. Do you really want WS to be like that clinical behemoth? And I doubt that they already had reviews posted before some got picked out as better than the others, thereby pissing on those others' efforts. One size doesn't fit all.


The simple fact is this: when someone, especially in defense of this system, says that he automatically views your reviews as accurate an unbiased, and everyone else's are not, then I don't want to do be part of it. I don't want to put effort into something that is dismissed before it's even read, just because it's not yours. And it makes me sorry I ever did.


And the cool thing is, now we don't need them.


Or... the diametrically opposed review could just be another review. And be convincing on its own merits, not because WS says, "you should listen to this guy, and only him."


I disagree with having a pre-picked authority. It's insulting because it's a system that fosters automatic dismissal of reviews by anyone who is not named Brian Robinson. That's why. Everyone can express their opinion, but if there's a disagreement, his word is golden and nobody else's is.

That's quite a misrepresentation of what he said, Peridot. His point was that some reviews can be biased or inaccurate but there now exists a model of comparison with a review that has been vetted, whether it be mine or any other that is picked as a Editor's Review.

How can we have a rational discussion about this topic when things like this are said?

COULD is the operative word. You want to dismiss the safeguard that some reviews aren't authentic just to support your argument.

Once again, incorrect. We have the ability to choose ANY review as an editor's review. It's not always my review that is on top. Plus, there is a group of several people who, if they add a review, it's automatically tagged as an 'editor's review' unless one has already been made.


Once again, completely false, as already explained. Plus, don't you think it would call into question my review is there were a dozen reviews for the product that were different than mine?

No, the simple fact is that there are a number of reviewers with better "Helpful" percentages than Brian's, which obviously means that many readers do NOT view his reviews as the only ones that are accurate and unbiased (ironically, you are one of those, and for the number of reviews you've submitted, you have at least many responses).

"Someone" can come along, and say anything about anything. This certainly doesn't represent a stastically significant part of the absinthe-shopping, review-reading public-at-large.

I'd argue about my percentage based on the fiascos and attacks levelled at me by those companies, but your point is still absolutely valid.

So, are you saying that you'd prefer there to not be a reliable review posted for brands that only have one or two reviews?

What if we do something like this:

For any brands that have more than 10 reviews, we remove the Editor's Review, as reliability of the reviews won't be as much of a question (unless we get a marketing department bomb, but that should be easily identifies). For any brands with less than 10 reviews, we have one up for reliability's sake.

OR

Same as above, but instead of having NO review for brands above 10, we choose what we think is the best review and use that as the Editor's Review. Maybe we switch the term from 'Editor's Review' to 'Featured Review'.

That might be a cool way to urge people to do well thought out and well written reviews and would nullify the argument of having a 'pre-determined' expert's review.

Thoughts?

Since your split shows I started this thread, maybe I should comment ...

I like both your suggestions. I have a marginal preference for the first one, unless there is a way to demonstrate that the "we" choosing the featured review is the overall "membership."

I've made a notation in your first post in this thread to clarify that.


With all due respect, I don't see how that could logistically be possible. It's hard enough to get people to take the time to do reviews, let along vote on the best review, for EACH absinthe, and keep it updated.

There's always going to have to be some form of responsibility given to someone to make a decision.

I think that some of the aforementioned ideas are a great suggestion, Brian. Specifically the latter. I would consider it great incentive to submit well-composed reviews, and would be honored to be the submitter of a Featured Review in the future!

FWIW, I vote for #1. Occam's razor....keep it simple.

I really like how anti-authoritarian Absinthe fans seem to be. Seems to be a common thread.

Fuck the man.