Scoring system and personal preference, ...how to do it? Options

[G&C]

No, Donnie.

Specific is Sink It or Drink It!


Your way is less specific.

[Wild Bill Turkey]

Of course it can be both, as with Elixier. Drink a glass of it, and a minute or two later you sink the same glass. (if you're still in the kitchen)

[The Standard Deviant]

Not Elixier du Pays des Fées, I hope?

[Wild Bill Turkey]

I've had this bottle for about two years. I can't believe I drank that much of it.

[G&C]

That's the crap.

"What is it?"

"I dunno. Well, it's . . . green."

[hartsmar]

But where's the review for it?

[Wild Bill Turkey]

I'll get right on it.

[hartsmar]

PS Hartsmar I just reviewed the Blanche Traditionelle Brut D'Alambic so you can add that the guide.

I noticed. I'll do one myself tonight as well.
I'll update all current and add my own reviews tonight when I get home from work.

[Absomphe]

"What is it?"

"I dunno. Well, it's . . . green."

Even Mr. Scott wouldn't touch that shite.

[Artemis]

I was pleased when Bob Chong emerged from the shadows of the forum's past - he might be heavy-handed at times (what would I know about that?) but I see I was justified as well as ancient - he's lived up to expectations. In this thread he's engendered a passionate and considered discussion at the heart of the matter, something that's been lacking for many moons.

It's important that newcomers join in, if for no other reason than that old timers may be too jaded (no pun intended) to get it up for absinthe anymore. It's good for newbies to contribute reviews - everyone learns something from such a review, including the newbie.

It's easy to be impressed by Mari Mayans - attractive bottle, spectacular color, spectacular louche.

No review should be deleted just because the reviewer would do it differently now. I don't like everything I wrote in old reviews, but they may have a certain entertainment value in addition to being a possible benchmark in light of subsequent reviews by others and/or myself - this is true for anyone - if you've changed your mind you can always say so and people may learn from this too.

[traineraz]

Perhaps it'd be worth allowing reviewers to add a "new thoughts" note to a review, at least a year after the initial posting, if his/her tastes or impressions have changed (with a date attached). That way, the initial review is preserved intact, but people don't feel a need to have their names removed from reviews or leave reviews posted which they now feel may be misleading.

For example, A.D.'s new review of VdF is well-written; however, in 2008, she may find that her scoring style varies from the present distribution, perhaps because her tastes change or the aspects of a product she values have shifted; products she feels are stronger may have similar or even lower scores. Products she finds weaker may have stronger scores. Rather than rewriting her review or disowning it, a simple note explaining the change in her tastes and suggestions on where she might rank the same product in 2008 (from the review, I'm sure the bottle will be empty by then!) will get the point across.

The minimum one-year wait time would dissuade people who are unduly pressured by others from changing their reviews right away; in a year's time, I doubt WBT will still want to delete his MM review, and it will no longer be a topic of controversy.

[Ari]

Not sure how multiple reviews on the same product by the same person will be handled but I have recently posted one, I think six, has suggested doing a couple and I might re-review some older stuff as well. I like the idea of reviews from different levels of taste education as well as new reviews from the same person. A good example of this is the Fou. Just recently a flavor that seemed a dullish musky unknown has jumped out at me as the alcohol base and now tastes better than it did in the past.

Absinthe is complex enough that it takes time for each flavor to appear, and I think the more the newbie who knows nothing about absinthe understands this, the better the reviews will be.

[Donnie Darko]

Perhaps it'd be worth allowing reviewers to add a "new thoughts" note to a review, at least a year after the initial posting, if his/her tastes or impressions have changed (with a date attached).

I think that's a great idea. It has become customary for some absinthe brands to be shipped without being properly aged first, and your suggestion would allow for a reviewer to put an addendum on the review if they revisit the same product months later and notice new developments due to aging.

[Absinthesizer]

I've had this bottle for about two years. I can't believe I drank that much of it.

Looking at that color, I am overwhelmed with gratitude for the veterans who endured the first years of the absinthe revival. You must have gone through hell, and with no guarantee that really good commercial absinthe would ever appear.

Thank you all!

[Donnie Darko]

Back then, several of us actually thought that stuff WAS good. I used to yap about how awesome NS70 was. I worshipped La Fee when I found it, then François Guy blew La Fee out of the water. After that, I thought Emile was the bees knees.

Then I had a well made HG, and suddenly couldn't swallow a drop of anything I had had before. Then I had a "lab sample" of Ted's, and there began the journey to the Temple of the Golden Yak in a very icy remote location, with only my nose and nubby fingers to guide me to the Temple.

I think several veterans have a not too dissimilar history with the drink...