A request for review readers

I'm sending out a general request to everyone who reads the reviews here to give me any critique of my reviews, good or bad (it wont hurt my feelings), and especially thoughts and ideas on what or how to make them better.

What information am I missing? What format would make for better/more useful reading? Are more pictures at different stages helpful?

Give me your ideas and opinions, keeping in mind that the outline form i fill out as I'm smoking has been ever evolving as new things come up, so the most recent couple reviews are what it would be best to base it on.

It would be greatly appreciated, as i enjoy sharing my experience with certain cigars, and want to know if people feel my reviews are worth a crap, and I feel I'm constantly learning by doing them also.

I can also post the form if people think it would help them give me a better critique and/or ideas on any information I may be missing.

Thanks,
Sean

I friggin love cigars

This is by no means a disrespectful criticism of your contributions. You regularly contribute reviews, and I'm happy to see you regularly plugging away at them even though there isn't much interaction within them to give you an insight into how they're being recieved. Job well done, in my book.

However, since you are asking for criticism, and I don't mind opining to hopefully give you that insight:

I suggest stepping outside of your normal format. A lot of your reviews read almost exactly the same, and almost seem like a format of - copy/paste of the draft, insert a score, and edit the technicals. Maybe add a bit of personality. Maybe take what you've learned by how typically format a review, and restructure it to something a bit YOU.

Just my $0.02, Sean. Hope you receive this well and as a constructive response rather than my criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chain_gang

This is by no means a disrespectful criticism of your contributions. You regularly contribute reviews, and I'm happy to see you regularly plugging away at them even though there isn't much interaction within them to give you an insight into how they're being recieved. Job well done, in my book.

However, since you are asking for criticism, and I don't mind opining to hopefully give you that insight:

I suggest stepping outside of your normal format. A lot of your reviews read almost exactly the same, and almost seem like a format of - copy/paste of the draft, insert a score, and edit the technicals. Maybe add a bit of personality. Maybe take what you've learned by how typically format a review, and restructure it to something a bit YOU.

Just my $0.02, Sean. Hope you receive this well and as a constructive response rather than my criticism.

---

No worries. I took it exactly as you meant it. Helpful criticism, which is exactly what I asked for since you are correct that I get little interaction within the threads other than from Ljutic, and all I have to go on is the number of views shown for the thread , which usually isnt too shabby, so apparently some people like them enough to keep reading each new one instead of seeing my name and skipping it.

What you said is pretty much exactly the most common response I expected.

Starting with the the most recent review, not counting the Bolivar one i took down temporarily as questions were raised about it on another forum and I don't want to be putting out bad information, i have begun trying to spice it up a little, but do know that there is plenty of room for improvement to make them less copy/paste and dry seeming and more interesting and personal to read without losing or watering down the facts that are my absolute goal of my reviews.

Still not sure exactly how to go about it, but am definitely working on it and hopefully those who actually do read my reviews will see, and appreciate, the evolution too a better format.

Glad to see that you are someone who reads my reviews as based on my reading of your posts/threads, you seem to not only be a very active member, but a pretty knowledgeable one at that, so i definitely appreciate you taking the time to share your input, which helps validate exactly what I was already thinking.

Initially the reviews were designed to simply and very basically express the facts/highlights of the cigar in question in a format free of all the "fluff" you have to dig through to pull out the facts, in most dedicated online reveiwers styles. Plus, I had never really done a formal review until fairly recently, so its taken a lot of reviews and thinking just to get to where I am now.

If you were to go back and read my first few reviews and then my most recent few, I hope you would see the evolution of them, hopefully for the better, but with obvious room for more improvement.

Going to try and spend some of my nearly unlimited free time reading more of other forum members and dedicated online reveiwers' reviews and hopefully get some ideas on how to improve upon mine, but without copying others' formats, rather developing my own.

Thanks again for your response. It is greatly appreciated and I hope to get even more from my loyal readers, (lol).

I friggin love cigars

New review for an Unnamed Reserve is up with a new style that's hopefully a little better and more entertaining to read while still getting all the info from the old style.

Curious how the new style goes over with anyone willing to comment on it.

No reason to be shy. You wont hurt my feelings or offend me or anything. Any honest critiques and comments are very welcome

I friggin love cigars