Great idea Hobbes! First challenge will be to divide off what's "objective", simple matter of fact (basic data that matta', like lineage, total grow/bloom time), and what's subjective (things like effects, efficacy, potency, even aroma to a certain degree)....And get a fair comparison to what the grower experienced and ended up with, vs what the breeder claims,... There's a lot of hype and and fuzzy details, even outright BS about strains as per the breeders description,... I'll need to think on this a bit more!
I agree, for me the most important info in a strain review is: how close did the grow/results match the breeder description.
Another point noted for having a breeder/grower comparison!
I’d like to play devils advocate here and suggest that reviews off strains are not like most reviews of most products. And I think are a bad idea. I’d love them if they were solid but the reality seems to me that strain reviews in and of themselves are just to objective IMHO. I’ve read some fantastic interactions between members here that are clearly seasoned growers and connoisseurs of fine cannabis on international levels and I know that what I’m reading has a high level of authenticity. And I know that the strains were cultivated in the correct way to give those plants the ability for their true potential to shine through.
I don’t think I can do that just chucking random new strains at the wall every 90 days. And I’m not sure that reviews won’t be written by hacks like me. So I honestly stay away from reading any reviews of strains. Equipment on the other hand is completely different. Objective is fine because the product is consistent.
So to end this crazy thought. I’d love reviews of strains if I could only see them from people I were sure were representing the true potential and had the experience to tell me the truth.
Maybe as a “final thought” or a possibility as a pop up after a completed tag. It would be nice if any review was able to be linked to an actual grow, that way we could see if we wanted how the grow went for that person. It would also help to protect the vendors from poor reviews in a way. I have seen many many folks growing fantastic genetics with poor results due to inexperience that I don’t think would deserve a poor review. So IMHO we just need to consider that to improve the concept.
FB
You raise some good points for sure. In my opinion, reviews -should- be written by growers of all experience levels. That's what gives people a well rounded idea of how something may perform, or hopefully even better, to see consistent comments among growers on certain things. I think the path we give them to get to that conclusion is part of the process though (asking joe-blow-never-grown to write a review on his grow on his own versus offering a guided, step-by-step review template, etc.)
When we ask the right questions, we get more of the answers we're wanting to see (whether it's good or bad.)
As to linking to the review, that's 100% doable and I believe we had a spot on the old review system for that purpose already. We can make the grow journal a required field on the review, that's not an issue at all and I agree should be a REQUIREMENT to even do a review on here (so we don't get newbies joining the site to post fluff reviews, etc.)
Overall I think reviews lack structure and not everyone that grows is seasoned to which I agree with you wholeheartedly. When I pick strains now I like to talk to the breeders, see pictures from talented growers, and read reviews across various forums.
I try to keep my journals structured so that my introduction contains the majority of information that doesn't need to be repeated. The daily reports have lately been
Strain
Day
Temp
Humidity
Feed strength
However in my review I would ideally do
- Introduction with links to journal and breeder
- Veg review
- Flower review
- Conclusion with pros and cons
For the most part my review will be in depth to a point because I have an entire thread dedicated to the strain or strains that covers everything without summarization.
I think having a structured format for the reviews that goes through a few experienced growers would be helpful. They could determine if the review and the journal reflect a standard of quality and honesty or just inexperience. It's a wasted review if the grower lacked experience and gives others examples.
This group could create a structured format that focuses on decided important points of interest so that nothing is wasted or redundant.
I would like to see
- Strain/breeder/price/distributor
- Breeders description
- Growers experience/introduction
- Setup; fans, area, tent, lights, medium, grow method, etc
- Intro with environment info, methods used, light schedules, a summarization of sort
- Veg, flower, conclusion, recommendations, advice
- Smoke report if available though I thinking consuming and cultivation are two different things
Maybe we could consider both a "grower/cultivation report" and an actual "consumption report?" A consumption report might be interesting, especially with legalization spreading and more people having access to dispensaries and cultivating.
Another thought is to making use the review to ask the rounded out questions, but make the review focus and emphasize the growers actual thread for the grow? That way it doesn't turn into a redundant pile of info (stuff copied from the thread, a gallery from the thread, etc.)
And a spot on the reviews where we can try to (as best we can) ask growers to be honest on their experience level.
Like SomeOne stated for me biggest problem is someone's tolerance.. I'm not flexing but sisnce I started growing I can smokeKOut 99% people that I know..My tolerance is thru the roof..So reading someones impressions about smoking strain he grew is big gamble for.. And Yes gower skill..We sub growers like me cannot be held on their word on strain potency/quality... Biggest evidence is at the site that Wecannot mention here..
Pick a strain then read grow diareis of it.. OmG..Horror movie..
I laughed reading this lol. Well again, I think this just drives home the point that we should keep cultivation reviews separate from consumption. I think most people are tempted to do the review after the grow anyway (not necessarily after the full dry and cure,) so asking for an individual potency review (oh I like how that sounds) should probably come after the product is actually ready. That'd be like asking someone to review beer that was just bottled but not aged.
So we can set up all reviews as categories (with sub categories: )
Eventually we'll grow the list out here, just not wanting to jump the gun.
Then every breeder on-site is listed out, and was thinking of having a "generic, catch-all" template for breeders NOT listed on the site (and then we can look at adding them as categories to keep it tidy, etc, or invite them to the site, etc etc.)
On the navigation side, every breeder forum on here would have a link back to their own review section (keeping it much tidier and neater to sort through reviews.)
The review system also has the option of creating a thread in a specific forum when the review is created (which links back to the actual review.) So there's numerous ways to link it back and forth (without getting messy.)
