Brands, Blenders & Manufacturers
Posted on March 4, 2008
Filed Under Help Wanted |
I am in the process now of actually moving the data from the old site database to the new one, and in doing so, I am running into situations that make me reevaluate some of the decisions I made when I first created the site.
One of those situations has to do with the Manufacturer/Blender field. You see, there is a lot of confusion, in the database, as to what information actually gets presented when you look at a particular blend. There are two fields currently, “Tobacco Brand” and “Blended by”. The problem is that I have been keeping basically three types of information in those two fields:
- The Brand Name under which the tobacco blend in question is sold
- The Manufacturer Name, if the company that actually makes the tobacco has a different name than the Brand Name.
- The Personal Name of the person who came up with the recipe if that is known.
This is causing me no end of headaches in trying to split them out in a rational manner into the new database, so I thought I’d ask for your help.
My intuition is that most people are not interested in much of this info outside of the Brand Name. Perhaps the Personal Name of the blender is nice to have, but not very useful. The Manufacturer Name is probably of no interest to almost anyone. So, I am thinking that I can scrap the “Blended by” entirely and make sure that the Brand Names are correct and almost everyone will be happy.
Let me know if this sounds reasonable, or if you really do use the “Blended by” information. Thanks!
Comments
10 Comments »
Trackback responses to this post
Subscribe To News
Burning Questions
What beverage, if any, do you drink while smoking?
- Coffee (29%, 14 Votes)
- Other (21%, 10 Votes)
- Water (17%, 8 Votes)
- Cocktail (13%, 6 Votes)
- None (10%, 5 Votes)
- Beer (6%, 3 Votes)
- Soda (4%, 2 Votes)
- Juice (0%, 0 Votes)
- Wine (0%, 0 Votes)
Total Voters: 48
Loading ...
+JMJ+
Jon,
It can be somewhat helpful to know who processed a blend. since it can let you know what to expect. For example, knowing that Butera’s Golden Cake is manufactured by McClelland will prepare one to expect that peculiar flavor associated with that blender.
However, in the practical realm it really necessary, especially if it is causing you “no end of headaches.” We should all be thankful for the work that you do here and for having such an entertaining database as tobaccoreviews. Besides, getting too in-depth may be one of those examples of turning an interesting diversion into a tortured obsession.
This is exactly what was happening. For some blends, like those made by McClelland, this is a pretty straight forward thing and could be easily done. For most tobaccos though, the scenario is labyrinthine in the extreme.
For example, Borkum Riff; who the hell “manufactures” it? The US Trademark is owned by Swedish Match and made at a plant in Owensboro, KY that is mostly owned by Liggett & Myers which may or may not still exist. In Europe, Borkum Riff is made by MacBaren for Swedish Match under contract to Villiger who also handles distribution in the US.
Do I put in Swedish Match because they own the trademark on it? If I do that, logic dictates that I say that G L Pease manufactures his own tobacco, instead of C&D. Do I put in the actual manufacturing facility? Well, which one do I choose: Swedish Match in KY, Liggett in KY, Villiger in Switzerland, Mac Baren in Denmark (who is likely using some facilities of Kohlhasse & Kopp in Germany…
Uggh.
Jon,
For this type of task I strongly recommend the KISS method. Moving this amount of data around needs to be kept as simple as possible. If at some time in the future, when the new db has settled down, you wish to add more detail, so be it. But for now…keep it simple.
Having read the above and totally concurring with them…Jon, just keep Brand Name
I agree that the brand name is enough for most people, but it would be nice to know the manufacturer of record. Where the tobacco is actually processed is likely more info than we would need.
But like Ted said, KISS.
I would suggest having Manufacturer Name as a non-indexed/non-searchable field. Data there would be purely optional. This allows the opportunity to add such information where it is pertinent, while avoiding adding coding/DB headaches.
Sorry Jon, I can´t help too much with that on but:
On a somewhat related topic, I would like to add that, as I mentioned in my update for Marlin Flake, K&K has a new website and I think it´s the best Blender´s site I´v seen. It is, however, only in German.
I would be happy to do translations for the blend descriptions for all the k&k brands. (Rattrays, McConnell, Peterson, Ashton, etc.) They list all the ingredients and, to a lesser degree, their amounts in each blend. Would that be helpful??
I´m not really into bursting bubbles or anything, don´t get me wrong, but there are a Lot of misconceptions about the ingredients of some of these blends, most notable Rattrays ´pure` VA´s. Not one of them is pure VA. (kentucky, black cav and perique are in almost every one.)
I know I get a lot out of the blend description, provided it´s correct. Let me know if I can help with this and with the beta run!
loosewatches@yahoo.com
thanks
-loose
p.s. I think this is a great (German language) review/info site, too. Lots of stuff about pipemakers pipes, tobaccos, and more.
http://daft.de/
and here´s a great Germ-Eng online dictionary:
http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/
Opps, forgot the K&K link
http://www.kohlkopp.com/
-loose
IMO the Brand Name and Manufacturer Name needs to be kept.
I guess I’ll be the lone voice that appreciates
having the Blender information when it’s there. I like knowing which of the blenders from Cornell & Diehl came up with a new blend or which of the different blenders at pipesandcigars.com came up with Anniversary Kake, for example.
I would have no problem indicating that this field is strictly optional. I wouldn’t even mind if it was non-searchable. And I could even let it go. But it seems a shame . . .
– Doug Pearson