Other people's opinion does not damage a reputation. If the whole thread is not based on an hoax, they are the ones damaging their own reputation. If the whole thread is about an hoax, it's a way they have found to make us discuss about their shop here. I would never hear about *pton if such threads didn't occur here. They are getting free PR.
That's an excellent way to discretly direct customers toward the teas you actually want to sell in quantities.
How do you know on which products they make most of their money ? Customers feel twice happier if they know a more expensive product is better than what they've order.
(Let me say I've snipped parts of this conversation. I'm sorry if I've snipped unfairly; I tried not to.)
I agree this statement may be unfounded. However, I think it is interesting to consider the bias that may be introduced by not allowing people who buy samples to write reviews.
True. I don't think Upton is trying to be disingenuous in this situation. At least, it would surprise me if this were so.
I agree with this post you've made. Upton does seem quite unique in offering customer reviews. Unlike other vendors, by doing so, they will be scrutinized for any attempts to introduce bias into their system. Deleting negative reviews would be the most obvious, but not the only way to do something like this. Is it possible another way is to prevent those who buy samples and dislike a particular tea from posting their opinion?
I won't stop considering Upton because of this practice, but it certainly casts their review system in an interesting light. As for SpecialTeas, I've had good experiences, though I've been frustrated at their descriptions of teas as well. Sometimes they just don't match up. Its probably just due to differences in taste, which is why the samples Upton offers are so potentially valuable. Still, given how much information these samples pass to their recipients, does it make sense that a person can't post their opinion about it?
NOW I see why you wanted a database Top Spin...see, I was going on the procedure of the book review groups I've seen where whoever wants to nominates a book and then however many votes that book gets from the other participants determines which book "wins" for the next month, but you are proposing a longer time period for tasting teas, and not just doing one a month based on the votes.
How many people would there need to be per tea to make it a tasting? Do you think two will be enough? I guess my concern is that there might be (read: will be) months I won't be able to participate that month. Burt if the tasting notes can be entered later (as long as the tea is available that will mean a person doesn't have to do ti once a month...
Anyhow, thanks for clarifying for me. And I'm tired so I hope the preceeding made some sense...
Randy...not to get too involved in this discussion, but I have written a negative review that they refused to post on their site. I have since not reviewd any teas for them nor will I. I still purchase from them. Those are my facts. Also to be fair, I look at the reviews on their site and there are very few one star reviews. Very few bad reviews. Now maybe that means that they pick very good teas (and I can attest to some of them, definitely) but...if you want to get into that aspect, someone do an audit of the reviews and how many of each type. But that seems to me to miss my point of not relying on what anyone else writes about a tea...you have to try it yourself, period. Beyond what the vendor says about the type (assam, green, etc.) and the leaf grade, I don't worry too much about it. They (meaning anyone, not just Upton) can't "lie" about those things because that would truly be fales advertising and they'd be liable, since those are concrete qualities that everyone can agree on, those are accepted industry standards.
Randy, if you will read my previous post (and I know you were not attacking me, I'm just pointing out my points again) I don't put a lot of store is either reviews or the producers' blurb. Before Amazon.com started having people register and verify who they were, authors would go on under multiple assumed names and praise their own books, and their enemies would go on and pan them. There were some real review wars going on, weird as that sounds. Buyers and readers need to not be so niave...don't believe everything ya read, especially when it's written by who knows who.
I agree that this likely introduces a positive bias into the reviews. I also agree with your previous point that this may be an effective way to reduce "noise".
I th> But that seems to me to miss my point of
This point is very well taken. I find the reviews of limited usefulness myself. One thing I try to do is find a reviewer who seems knowledgeable and has tastes similar to mine, and then I put *a little* more stock in what (s)he says. The other thing that I notice is when a big bunch of people have given strongly positive reviews (like for Keemun Mao Feng or Long-Jing), then it is probably a very good tea. But still, I would consider your point "rule #1" about choosing teas.
I posted numerous reviews at the same time I reviewed the Margaret's Hope. The positive reviews were posted within a day. That one sat awaiting staff review and didn't get posted until I complained and this thread was running for a couple of days. Coincidence? Also I would not say I panned the tea. I simply said the tea did not justify the price, and if steeped to little it was tasteless and to long it was astringent. Panned means to criticize severely. It's not like I said this stuff was the worst tea in the world and should only be fed to pigs.
I'm not sure your example is worse. Most companies don't have a customer review component after all, and all vendors try to present their teas in the best light in their blurb descriptions. Of course you and I can see right through them. If a company does have a mechanism for accepting customer reviews, the system should not be unabashedly bias and therefore dishonest. Anyway, that's my opinion on it.
On your second paragraph, where your sarcasm approaches mine, I'll look through my extensive data bases and get back to you.
I've looked through my extensive data bases and came up with...the none you expected. Oh, well. Say la vee.
Let me back peddle a bit here with respect to Randy, whose point is well taken, although I do not agree that Upton is an excellent vendor, albeit perhaps average. My comments are predicated on the veracity of the observation that Upton refused negative reviews while accepting positive ones. That is a form of lying, and warrants my no longer doing business with them. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.
The liar reference related to censorship, not to their review-of-samples decision. As I'd mentioned elsewhere though, if a sample is too small to provide enough drink to form a judgement, then the sample is too small. The purpose of sampling is to form a judgement, no?
Yes, and as I alluded to above, not allowing people to review samples skews the reviews to teas the buyer has chosen from the samples, which eliminates the rejected teas, which skews the reviews.
Point more than well taken.
I've gotten some excellent teas from SpecialTeas, but I've found that they could not provide information about them, which struck me as strange. So, I choose to buy from vendors who are more in contact with the farms and gardens whence the teas come. I guess I'm biased against mammouth operations of the ST and Upton types.
Let me end on this note: Randy caught me being cute with language, overstating a case without having personally investigated it, and possibly harming a vendor who does indeed have something to offer. He is right in this. I am wrong, albeit mostly stylistically. Sloppy writing on my part; good on his. Sorry. I'll try to moderate (modify?) myself in future.
DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.