Sonam /3/05


On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 11:22:18 -0800, Mike Boucher typed:

This really did not sit well with me. Do I seem unreasonable about this?
I have place many orders with Upton's and have always been happy with the
service.
But I am starting to have second thought about them based on this reply.

Unreasonable? Well, IMO the decision is yours alone to make.

That being said, I do agree with Upton's, and feel that one should spend
more time tasting a product than just from a sample. This is influenced by
my being a pipe-smoker for over 40 years, and I know that one must smoke
more than a few bowls of a tobacco to properly appreciate it, much less
review it. The web is now replete with tobacco review web-sites, and
through experience I can tell which reviewer actually spent some time with
a tobacco, and which reviewer smoked a bowl or two and then wrote a
"review".

While your point is well taken, I believe that if Upton's samples are in
their opinion too small to allow a fair evaluation, then their samples are
undersized.

Michael

Top 2/4/05


On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:04:29 -0800, "Melinda"
wrote:

Ah, I really truly mean no offense here Top Spin but that's rather more
organization and control then I was looking for. I just thought this was
going to be a sort of informal thing. Seeing as there's only maybe four
people that have expressed an interest so far, we might not need such a lot
of organization. I suppose if we only have a few people, they could each put
forward the tea they would like to see reviewed and then we could all vote
on it. As to exactness of the tastings...lol, wasn't this the issue with
Upton in the first place? Irony. Anyhow...several trys I suppose could be
made before a reviewer pronounced his or her findings..::shrug::

Melinda

No offense at all. Whatever everyone wants. But I suspect there might
be more interest than you think.


I can't say quite yet what my time and tide will allow my participation to
be, but I think the basic idea of group tastings and commentings is a great
one whose time has definitely come.

Michael

FWIW, I think an informal setup would be most beneficial, at least
for now. Get the project up and running, and get people comfortable
with the process. A database is a good idea, and I certainly have
the time to do an RFDT website, but that doesn't have to happen
first.

I made a suggestion earlier for a particular tea, the Dragon Well
China green from SpecialTeas. Not that it's a perfect choice, or
better than any other choice, but I think a definite decision will
get the ball rolling.

My understanding of this "experiment" is that we're setting up a
common ground, through which we can understand what someone means
by, for instance, "astringent", or "floral", or whatever. That's
more than enough reason to do a group buy.

Anyway, these are just my ideas. I'm fairly loopy from a cold right
now, so I hope this makes sense. :-)

Ian
--
http://www.bookstacks.org/

On 7 Feb 2005 13:06:34 GMT, Ian Rastall wrote:

FWIW, I think an informal setup would be most beneficial, at least
for now. Get the project up and running, and get people comfortable
with the process. A database is a good idea, and I certainly have
the time to do an RFDT website, but that doesn't have to happen
first.

I made a suggestion earlier for a particular tea, the Dragon Well
China green from SpecialTeas. Not that it's a perfect choice, or
better than any other choice, but I think a definite decision will
get the ball rolling.

My understanding of this "experiment" is that we're setting up a
common ground, through which we can understand what someone means
by, for instance, "astringent", or "floral", or whatever. That's
more than enough reason to do a group buy.

Anyway, these are just my ideas. I'm fairly loopy from a cold right
now, so I hope this makes sense. :-)

Ian

If we have a website with a database, then several interesting things
are possible. Leaving out the procedural details, I offer these
suggestions and rationale:

1. Introduce new selections periodically. I suggest once a month or
so. This keeps the work more manageable and gives people time to
obtain the tea and test it.

2. We need some mechanism to select the candidates. Maybe have two
databases: (1) List of candidate teas on which people can vote for
inclusion. Teas get added if nominated and seconded. People can then
vote to include them in future tastings. Next tea is selected from top
candidates. (2) Actual tasting results. Voters should provide brewing
information.

3. Keep voting open for a fairly long time (at least months, maybe as
long as the tea is available). This will allow many more people to
participate. I currently have more tea samples than I will ever use
having just received an order. So I am unlikely to order anything
right now. But when I am ready, I might order several from the tasting
list on my next order and then submit my results.

3. Rotate vendors. Make sure that we don't favor one or two vendors.

4. Rotate teas. Make sure we get a good mix of varieties (green,
black, oolong, etc.)

I am just getting into tea. I never know what to try. If this database
had been going for awhile, I would probably order several from the
list each tme I placed an order.

Thanks

--
Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com
(11/09/04)

Michael Plant wrote:

Mike Boucher wrote:

I was recently going through my past orders at Upton's to add some reviews
to the teas I had ordered and noticed that you are only allowed to post
public reviews to teas that were ordered in larger quantities (Not samples)
[snip]
This really did not sit well with me. Do I seem unreasonable about this?
I have place many orders with Upton's and have always been happy with the
service.
But I am starting to have second thought about them based on this reply.

I think you are quite right in your assessment.
[snip]
Upton lies. Pass them by. Don't
buy from companies that wiggle and wriggle. Their explanation died on the
vine. That's my every so humble opinion. Thanks Mike for bringing this to
our attention.

Gosh, Michael, you think that's bad - wait till you hear this!

I actually have seen some online vendors who don't allow anyone to post
any reviews at all! What they do is put up *their own* blurbs about
the tea - and guess what? All those blurbs only talk about how good the
tea is! Talk about totalitarian censorship - reminds me of PRAVDA in the
old days of the Soviet Union.

OK, you've convinced me! Let's all only order tea from online vendors who
allow totally uncensored public reviews of their teas to be posted onto
their websites. Now, let's see, maybe you can remind me - who are those
vendors again?


Randy

RJP wrote:
Michael Plant wrote:
snip

Mike Boucher wrote:

Gosh, Michael, you think that's bad - wait till you hear this!

I actually have seen some online vendors who don't allow anyone to post
any reviews at all! What they do is put up *their own* blurbs about
the tea - and guess what? All those blurbs only talk about how good the
tea is! Talk about totalitarian censorship - reminds me of PRAVDA in the
old days of the Soviet Union.

OK, you've convinced me! Let's all only order tea from online vendors who
allow totally uncensored public reviews of their teas to be posted onto
their websites. Now, let's see, maybe you can remind me - who are those
vendors again?

Randy


While I understand your point, I think there is a difference between a
site that advertises customer reviews and one that does not. To make a
fair comparison, your example would have to be a site which claiming to
have customer reviews but having marketing instead. In its present
form, it is a strawman.

That being said, I don't necessarily agree 100% with Michael's analysis.
Perhaps Upton has legitimite reasons other than rating-inflation in
mind. His is still an interesting point; perhaps a fair compromise on
Upton's part would be to include what purchase a person is making their
review on as part of the review process.

Still, raising the purchase required may be an effective way to reduce
signal to noise ratio. What comes into question is if this reduction is
not also accompanied with an unfair positive bias in reviews.

Steve

"Steve Hay" wrote:

While I understand your point, I think there is a difference between a
site that advertises customer reviews and one that does not.

I'm afraid my real point got lost in my sarcasm, as I had a bit
of steam coming out of my ears at the time. I apologize - I'll
make myself clear (I hope) below. This is certainly not intended
to be a personal attack on Michael Plant (who I think probably
knows a lot more about tea than I do); rather it is intended to
be a vigorous challenge to some of what he wrote. (Neither, BTW,
do I have any issue with Mike Boucher, who was simply irked
that he couldn't review a sample and was seeking other
opinions.)

As a conclusion to his post, Michael Plant wrote this:

Upton lies. Pass them by.

I believe these statements are *completely* unwarranted, and very
unfairly damage the reputation of an excellent online vendor.

Upton offers a combination of features that few or no other online
vendors do, these being 1) huge selection, 2) the ability to buy
virtually any of their teas in sample sizes, and 3) the ability to post
reviews of their teas to their own website. Yes, they don't allow
you to post a review if you have only bought a sample. I don't
necessarily agree with this position, although I do think it is
defensible. It in no way justifies labeling them as liars.

Some strong evidence against this characterization is the fact that
Upton DOES in fact post bad reviews on their site. I believe people
have a strong tendency to write only good reviews, which at least
in part accounts for the preponderance of good reviews on the site.

But take a look at the Darjeeling Margaret's Hope Estate FTGFOP1
MUSC 2nd Flush, which is TD35 in Upton's numbering system.
This is an expensive tea, with only one review (by our own
Mike Boucher, it turns out). He gave it the worst review possible -
one star, and really panned it. But still, there it is for all the world
to read. Now, this review is going to cost Upton sales and money.
How many other vendors would post such a review on their own
website?? Wouldn't a "liar" quickly sweep such a review under the
rug, or better yet, replace it with a good review???

Let me contrast this with an experience I had sometime back with
another online vendor - SpecialTeas. I ordered an oolong that
looked like a good value to me. Their description sounded very
good - but of course there was no customer input because they
don't have that on their site. And, I couldn't get it in a sample
size so I had to buy 1/4 lb. (they do carry many of their teas in
sample sizes, but did not have this one). It turned out to be
perhaps the worst oolong I have ever tasted, and I experimented
a lot with it. At anything past 2.5 minutes, it was very astringent,
and at less than that, it was pretty lifeless. But I was stuck with
the whole packet, and no way to post my opinion on their site.

Now, I still think SpecialTeas is a good vendor and continue to
recommend them. But if "Upton lies", then what are we to say
about SpecialTeas? I would have very much preferred to buy this
tea from Upton, as then I would have only had to buy a sample,
even if I couldn't review it. And if I had been forced to buy a
packet from Upton, at least I could have voiced my opinion.

I don't think Upton is the be-all-and-end-all of online tea
vendors. I'm sure there are many other excellent vendors out
there, especially if you are looking for high end teas, or
specialty styles like Pu-erh. But Upton has a lot going for them,
especially for newbies and generalists. I simply can't sit still
and let Michael's conclusion and characterization go
unchallenged. They do not lie, and rather than pass them by,
you should seriously consider purchasing tea from them.


--
Randy
(if replying by e-mail, remove SPAMFREE and DeLeTe from my address)
Current book recommendation: BLUE LIKE JAZZ

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:43:30 -0600, RJP quoth:

As for not being able to publicly review a sample - I think you can make
a case both ways. On Upton's side, many teas require a little experimenting
with steep times and temperatures to find the combo that is just right
for your taste. One sample may not be enough to do this. And in fact a
real "expert" may be able to find that combo more quickly.

I can think of several teas that I hated at first, and grew to like or
even love later after I had more experience with them. I wouldn't have
bothered to give them more time if I hadn't bought a full 3-4 oz tin and
felt the need to finish it.

Of course maybe you can convince Upton that you're a real Tea Poo-Bah
and get them to accept your reviews under-the-counter.

bkr

"RJP" wrote in message

I actually have seen some online vendors who don't allow anyone to post
any reviews at all!

We know the texts on the HP are written or at least chosen by the vendor,
and that the vendor will show you the positive aspects, that's fair.
But when Upton say they let you send reviews, it's in order to give you the
false impression the reviews are not part of their marketing. It's taking
customers for dumbies.

OK, you've convinced me! Let's all only order tea from online vendors who
allow totally uncensored public reviews of their teas to be posted onto
their websites.

You have not understood anything. A vendor has no obligation to provide
public reviews, like he/she doesn't have to put photos or tons of things.
But if they decide to do something, they will be judged on the way it's
done. On that point, we can see their sense of honesty.

Kuri

"kuri" wrote:

But when Upton say they let you send reviews, it's in order to give you the
false impression the reviews are not part of their marketing. It's taking
customers for dumbies.

How has this been demonstrated to be a false impression? Have YOU
ever written a negative review they haven't posted? The only thing
at issue here is whether they allow reviews of samples - which they
don't. Now, exactly how does that create a false impression? This
is not a secret.

You have not understood anything. A vendor has no obligation to provide
public reviews, like he/she doesn't have to put photos or tons of things.
But if they decide to do something, they will be judged on the way it's
done. On that point, we can see their sense of honesty.

I have understood plenty. To me, you seem to be confused about
exactly what the issue is here. You seem to have "piled on" without
understanding the facts. Read my most recent post (besides this one)
on this issue. Upton does in fact post negative reviews on their site.
Again I ask - have YOU ever written a negative review they haven't
posted? If not, then exactly what is your problem with them?


--
Randy
(if replying by e-mail, remove SPAMFREE and DeLeTe from my address)
Current book recommendation: BLUE LIKE JAZZ

"RJP" wrote in message

Upton lies. Pass them by.

I believe these statements are *completely* unwarranted, and very
unfairly damage the reputation of an excellent online vendor.

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.

Some strong evidence against this characterization is the fact that
Upton DOES in fact post bad reviews on their site.

That's an excellent way to discretly direct customers toward the teas you
actually want to sell in quantities.

This is an expensive tea, with only one review (by our own
Mike Boucher, it turns out). He gave it the worst review possible -
one star, and really panned it. But still, there it is for all the world
to read. Now, this review is going to cost Upton sales and money.

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.

Kuri

In rec.food.drink.tea RJP wrote:

Darjeeling Margaret's Hope Estate FTGFOP1
MUSC 2nd Flush, which is TD35 in Upton's numbering system.
This is an expensive tea, with only one review (by our own
Mike Boucher, it turns out). He gave it the worst review
possible - one star, and really panned it.

As an aside, this is my favorite of all their teas. Panned it? Bah.
I should go in there and write one myself. :-)

Ian
--
http://www.bookstacks.org/

RJP wrote:
"Steve Hay" wrote:
As a conclusion to his post, Michael Plant wrote this:


Upton lies. Pass them by.


I believe these statements are *completely* unwarranted, and very
unfairly damage the reputation of an excellent online vendor.

(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.

Some strong evidence against this characterization is the fact that
Upton DOES in fact post bad reviews on their site. I believe people
have a strong tendency to write only good reviews, which at least
in part accounts for the preponderance of good reviews on the site.

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 don't think Upton is the be-all-and-end-all of online tea
vendors. I'm sure there are many other excellent vendors out
there, especially if you are looking for high end teas, or
specialty styles like Pu-erh. But Upton has a lot going for them,
especially for newbies and generalists. I simply can't sit still
and let Michael's conclusion and characterization go
unchallenged. They do not lie, and rather than pass them by,
you should seriously consider purchasing tea from them.

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?


Randy

Steve

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...

Melinda

--
"The country has entered an era in which
questions are not asked, for questions are
daughters of disquiet or arrogance, both
fruits of temptation and the food of sacrilege." Djaout
"Top Spin" wrote in message
...
On 7 Feb 2005 13:06:34 GMT, Ian Rastall wrote:

FWIW, I think an informal setup would be most beneficial, at least
for now. Get the project up and running, and get people comfortable
with the process. A database is a good idea, and I certainly have
the time to do an RFDT website, but that doesn't have to happen
first.

I made a suggestion earlier for a particular tea, the Dragon Well
China green from SpecialTeas. Not that it's a perfect choice, or
better than any other choice, but I think a definite decision will
get the ball rolling.

My understanding of this "experiment" is that we're setting up a
common ground, through which we can understand what someone means
by, for instance, "astringent", or "floral", or whatever. That's
more than enough reason to do a group buy.

Anyway, these are just my ideas. I'm fairly loopy from a cold right
now, so I hope this makes sense. :-)

Ian

If we have a website with a database, then several interesting things
are possible. Leaving out the procedural details, I offer these
suggestions and rationale:

1. Introduce new selections periodically. I suggest once a month or
so. This keeps the work more manageable and gives people time to
obtain the tea and test it.

2. We need some mechanism to select the candidates. Maybe have two
databases: (1) List of candidate teas on which people can vote for
inclusion. Teas get added if nominated and seconded. People can then
vote to include them in future tastings. Next tea is selected from top
candidates. (2) Actual tasting results. Voters should provide brewing
information.

3. Keep voting open for a fairly long time (at least months, maybe as
long as the tea is available). This will allow many more people to
participate. I currently have more tea samples than I will ever use
having just received an order. So I am unlikely to order anything
right now. But when I am ready, I might order several from the tasting
list on my next order and then submit my results.

3. Rotate vendors. Make sure that we don't favor one or two vendors.

4. Rotate teas. Make sure we get a good mix of varieties (green,
black, oolong, etc.)

I am just getting into tea. I never know what to try. If this database
had been going for awhile, I would probably order several from the
list each tme I placed an order.

Thanks

--
Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com
(11/09/04)

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.

Melidna

--
"The country has entered an era in which
questions are not asked, for questions are
daughters of disquiet or arrogance, both
fruits of temptation and the food of sacrilege." Djaout
"RJP" wrote in message
...
"kuri" wrote:

But when Upton say they let you send reviews, it's in order to give you
the
false impression the reviews are not part of their marketing. It's taking
customers for dumbies.

How has this been demonstrated to be a false impression? Have YOU
ever written a negative review they haven't posted? The only thing
at issue here is whether they allow reviews of samples - which they
don't. Now, exactly how does that create a false impression? This
is not a secret.

You have not understood anything. A vendor has no obligation to provide
public reviews, like he/she doesn't have to put photos or tons of
things.
But if they decide to do something, they will be judged on the way it's
done. On that point, we can see their sense of honesty.

I have understood plenty. To me, you seem to be confused about
exactly what the issue is here. You seem to have "piled on" without
understanding the facts. Read my most recent post (besides this one)
on this issue. Upton does in fact post negative reviews on their site.
Again I ask - have YOU ever written a negative review they haven't
posted? If not, then exactly what is your problem with them?


--
Randy
(if replying by e-mail, remove SPAMFREE and DeLeTe from my address)
Current book recommendation: BLUE LIKE JAZZ