Comments on: Classifying Blends http://nonnix.com/2008/03/30/classifying-blends.html All the News That's Fit to Smoke Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:48:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Cliff Shelby http://nonnix.com/2008/03/30/classifying-blends.html#comment-460 Cliff Shelby Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:40:10 +0000 http://nonnix.com/?p=61#comment-460 Jon, First of all, thanks for setting up a great site! Just thinking and decided I'd enter my 2 cents. While classifying blends is worthwhile, most people don't taste the same things the same way. It's a scientific fact (Biology, 10th grade, 1974). And most of the descriptions used by the tobacco sellers are subjective, to put it mildly. One man's favorite blend can be another man's gag-reflex! My idea was that if someone liked a particular blend, there could be a way to rate it and at the same time suggest other blends that they also like as much. Not scientific for sure, but could be helpful. For example, I really love a blend- Gatlin Burlier, "Chimney Smoke". I also love their "Mountain Mall Mix" and "Morning Moonshine". They are all different "types" of blends, but have similar attributes that I enjoy without being able to put those attributes into words. Off my soapbox. Just wanted to also add that it would be great if more tobacco shops (especially online) offered sampler packs. Randy's Tobacco Shop in Indianapolis sells 8-one ounce samples for less than $20. Kudos! Hey, how about a swap-a-sample program. Always brainstorming (with what little I have left :)). Cliff Shelby, Castle Rock, Colorado Jon,

First of all, thanks for setting up a great site!

Just thinking and decided I’d enter my 2 cents.

While classifying blends is worthwhile, most people don’t taste the same things the same way. It’s a scientific fact (Biology, 10th grade, 1974).

And most of the descriptions used by the tobacco sellers are subjective, to put it mildly. One man’s favorite blend can be another man’s gag-reflex!

My idea was that if someone liked a particular blend, there could be a way to rate it and at the same time suggest other blends that they also like as much. Not scientific for sure, but could be helpful. For example, I really love a blend- Gatlin Burlier, “Chimney Smoke”. I also love their “Mountain Mall Mix” and “Morning Moonshine”. They are all different “types” of blends, but have similar attributes that I enjoy without being able to put those attributes into words.

Off my soapbox. Just wanted to also add that it would be great if more tobacco shops (especially online) offered sampler packs. Randy’s Tobacco Shop in Indianapolis sells 8-one ounce samples for less than $20. Kudos!

Hey, how about a swap-a-sample program. Always brainstorming (with what little I have left :)).

Cliff Shelby,
Castle Rock, Colorado

]]> By: Joe Patterson http://nonnix.com/2008/03/30/classifying-blends.html#comment-455 Joe Patterson Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:49:51 +0000 http://nonnix.com/?p=61#comment-455 There are so many possibilities for blending and so many tastes that classification, even by "pure" standards seems too rigid -- much like the classification of pipe shapes which we all know has no strict bounds. What you may call a lovat, I may call a billiard whilst another may cry out, "Brandy, of course!" The ever-raging Bulldog versus Rhodesian may never be decided except by those members of the AKC! Should pipe tobacco (straight or blended) be measured on such discrete metrics? Though many hold in their minds firm definitions of English, Aromatic, Vapers, etc., where does one end and another pick up? Does 3% Vanilla Black Cavendish make a blend with 40% latakia an aromatic? Is FM an aromatic? What about FMOT? (I can hear the “room” of smokers dividing.) Mississippi Mud is not just a clever name, but the name of a Vaper, no wait…English…wait, that’s not it… I'm game for an algorithm based search...perhaps one utilizing similar criteria as one used for a certain online tobacconist? Hmmm? Joe P There are so many possibilities for blending and so many tastes that classification, even by “pure” standards seems too rigid — much like the classification of pipe shapes which we all know has no strict bounds.

What you may call a lovat, I may call a billiard whilst another may cry out, “Brandy, of course!” The ever-raging Bulldog versus Rhodesian may never be decided except by those members of the AKC!

Should pipe tobacco (straight or blended) be measured on such discrete metrics? Though many hold in their minds firm definitions of English, Aromatic, Vapers, etc., where does one end and another pick up? Does 3% Vanilla Black Cavendish make a blend with 40% latakia an aromatic? Is FM an aromatic? What about FMOT? (I can hear the “room” of smokers dividing.) Mississippi Mud is not just a clever name, but the name of a Vaper, no wait…English…wait, that’s not it…

I’m game for an algorithm based search…perhaps one utilizing similar criteria as one used for a certain online tobacconist? Hmmm?

Joe P

]]> By: Ethan Dickey WNC Mountains http://nonnix.com/2008/03/30/classifying-blends.html#comment-451 Ethan Dickey WNC Mountains Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:00:30 +0000 http://nonnix.com/?p=61#comment-451 I personally categorize into 3 types for my own personall use : 1) "True Aromatic" - fully and noticeably cased like Blue Note (Dan) 2) "Lite-Aromatic" - lightly topped with something however faint like Frogmorton or Flake DeLuxe 3 "Non-Flavored" - not topping whatsoever, like Ashbury, Nightcap or Christmas Cheer. I have found "English/Balkan/Scottish/Gibberish/Tom-foolery" to be plain confusing and totally unrelated to whether I liked the blend and my smoking pleasure. What's in a name? "A Rose by any other name would smell like Perique!" :) Thanks, Ethan "Glorfindel" Dickey I personally categorize into 3 types for my own personall use :

1) “True Aromatic” - fully and noticeably cased like Blue Note (Dan)
2) “Lite-Aromatic” - lightly topped with something however faint like Frogmorton or Flake DeLuxe
3 “Non-Flavored” - not topping whatsoever, like Ashbury, Nightcap or Christmas Cheer.

I have found “English/Balkan/Scottish/Gibberish/Tom-foolery” to be plain confusing and totally unrelated to whether I liked the blend and my smoking pleasure. What’s in a name? “A Rose by any other name would smell like Perique!”

:)

Thanks,

Ethan “Glorfindel” Dickey

]]> By: Better Searching & Blend Discovery : Tobacco Reviews News http://nonnix.com/2008/03/30/classifying-blends.html#comment-450 Better Searching & Blend Discovery : Tobacco Reviews News Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:52:04 +0000 http://nonnix.com/?p=61#comment-450 [...] responses to the Classifying Blends post have been very enlightening. It seems that the overwhelming sentiment is that instituting some [...] [...] responses to the Classifying Blends post have been very enlightening. It seems that the overwhelming sentiment is that instituting some [...]

]]> By: Jon Tillman http://nonnix.com/2008/03/30/classifying-blends.html#comment-449 Jon Tillman Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:24:54 +0000 http://nonnix.com/?p=61#comment-449 It seems to me, reading through the replies, that most people consider this to be a bad idea - one fraught with too much possibility for acrimony, and not accomplishing much in the long run. Perhaps the best way to proceed is to, as several people have suggested, beef up the search algorithms to include more criteria and to add some new ways of discovering blends you might like. I'll post a separate article on directions that could go for discussion. It seems to me, reading through the replies, that most people consider this to be a bad idea - one fraught with too much possibility for acrimony, and not accomplishing much in the long run.

Perhaps the best way to proceed is to, as several people have suggested, beef up the search algorithms to include more criteria and to add some new ways of discovering blends you might like. I’ll post a separate article on directions that could go for discussion.

]]> By: cmhpgmrguy http://nonnix.com/2008/03/30/classifying-blends.html#comment-447 cmhpgmrguy Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:39:03 +0000 http://nonnix.com/?p=61#comment-447 I have always thought it would be handy to have a search criteria based on the average rating categories, such as Strength, Flavoring, Taste and Room Note. I believe your site already has a search catgegory (By Rating) that lists those tobaccos that have Four Stars. I prefer the tobaccos that would fall into the Strength category of at least "Strong" and would like to have the ability to only search those blends. Don't most English blends fall into the stronger categories and aromatics fall into the milder categories? Just a suggestion. I have always thought it would be handy to have a search criteria based on the average rating categories, such as Strength, Flavoring, Taste and Room Note. I believe your site already has a search catgegory (By Rating) that lists those tobaccos that have Four Stars. I prefer the tobaccos that would fall into the Strength category of at least “Strong” and would like to have the ability to only search those blends. Don’t most English blends fall into the stronger categories and aromatics fall into the milder categories? Just a suggestion.

]]> By: Scott Waddell http://nonnix.com/2008/03/30/classifying-blends.html#comment-446 Scott Waddell Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:21:19 +0000 http://nonnix.com/?p=61#comment-446 <i>Seems to me than even a flawed and subjective classification is better than no classificaiton at all.</i> Agreed. It's just for the purposes of making searches and comparisons easier, not establishing an infallible canon of classifications. They way the advanced search is set up now has very limited useability. Seems to me than even a flawed and subjective classification is better than no classificaiton at all.

Agreed. It’s just for the purposes of making searches and comparisons easier, not establishing an infallible canon of classifications. They way the advanced search is set up now has very limited useability.

]]> By: Dave Webber http://nonnix.com/2008/03/30/classifying-blends.html#comment-445 Dave Webber Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:14:51 +0000 http://nonnix.com/?p=61#comment-445 Jon, I agree with Illinois Hick and JJ and the rest - classification is a dangerous business! Also - for the record - the current "advanced search" is a truly excellent tool that ALREADY allows searching by tobacco type, brand, even strength and room note, to say nothing of the recommendation! For my money, a more obvious physical placement of the "Advanced Search" would really be all you need, but it would be helpful to have headings for each criteria. Dave Webber Jon,

I agree with Illinois Hick and JJ and the rest - classification is a dangerous business!

Also - for the record - the current “advanced search” is a truly excellent tool that ALREADY allows searching by tobacco type, brand, even strength and room note, to say nothing of the recommendation!

For my money, a more obvious physical placement of the “Advanced Search” would really be all you need, but it would be helpful to have headings for each criteria.

Dave Webber

]]> By: Jesse Rimshas http://nonnix.com/2008/03/30/classifying-blends.html#comment-444 Jesse Rimshas Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:35:30 +0000 http://nonnix.com/?p=61#comment-444 I agree with Illinois Hick on this one. As a relative newbie, it's hard to sort through all the labels. The classifications would be helpful. If you'd like to try to please the masses on this one, you could take a poll of the classifications people would like to see and go from there. Democratic process, more or less. You could break new ground here. Who knows? Maybe our grandchildren will look back to the day when tobaccos were once and for all authoritatively categorized by their faithful forefathers on Tobaccoreviews.com! I agree with Illinois Hick on this one. As a relative newbie, it’s hard to sort through all the labels. The classifications would be helpful. If you’d like to try to please the masses on this one, you could take a poll of the classifications people would like to see and go from there. Democratic process, more or less. You could break new ground here. Who knows? Maybe our grandchildren will look back to the day when tobaccos were once and for all authoritatively categorized by their faithful forefathers on Tobaccoreviews.com!

]]> By: Illinois_Hick http://nonnix.com/2008/03/30/classifying-blends.html#comment-443 Illinois_Hick Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:52:18 +0000 http://nonnix.com/?p=61#comment-443 Since many blends (including those that are intentionally "cross-over") are difficult to characterize, why couldn't a blends be tagged for more than one category? For instance, Morley's Best from C&D could be classified as both a "Burley Blend" and an "American English Blend." Anyway, I think the classification is another tool that could be helpful to many. But individual users can take it or leave it. Seems to me than even a flawed and subjective classification is better than no classificaiton at all. Since many blends (including those that are intentionally “cross-over”) are difficult to characterize, why couldn’t a blends be tagged for more than one category? For instance, Morley’s Best from C&D could be classified as both a “Burley Blend” and an “American English Blend.”

Anyway, I think the classification is another tool that could be helpful to many. But individual users can take it or leave it. Seems to me than even a flawed and subjective classification is better than no classificaiton at all.

]]>