Thread: Review section

Yes. The chart makes it very clear that the top notes are at the top, and below those but above the base notes are the middle notes. It may have come as a surprise to some that the base notes are at the bottom.

Originally Posted by HNSB

Yes. The chart makes it very clear that the top notes are at the top, and below those but above the base notes are the middle notes. It may have come as a surprise to some that the base notes are at the bottom.

That would be the not so brilliant way to read it.

I'm quite a lot confused.

Surely if you are talking about "notes", the correct nomenclature should be "bass", "baritone", and "tenor" for men, and perhaps "contralto", "mezzo", and "soprano" for females?

James.

Originally Posted by HNSB

Yes. The chart makes it very clear that the top notes are at the top, and below those but above the base notes are the middle notes. It may have come as a surprise to some that the base notes are at the bottom.

What if you invert it ? ......... then the top goes to the bottom ....... not so brilliant, I know .... ........

That makes me wonder... Are the top notes at the top of my aftershave when the bottle is upright, or when I tip it upside down to pour my splash?
That's got to be a tricky manufacturing process.

Originally Posted by Birnando

As I understand it the top/middle/base notes are best described as follows:

Attachment 129951

This chart indicates that the top notes lasts rather short, the middle a bit longer, and the base is what the scent settles down to.
In other words, read the widening of the pyramide as an indication of time.

Believe me when I tell you that this is the only time I have ever heard something like this. I always assumed that the parts lost their identity and the combination made one unique scent.

Your explanation lends itself to another term I read, "complex" scents.

That makes sense.

Originally Posted by Birnando

As I understand it the top/middle/base notes are best described as follows:

Attachment 129951

You don't even know how wrong you are. Here's the real description fresh from a highly classified vault:

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCajun

Believe me when I tell you that this is the only time I have ever heard something like this. I always assumed that the parts lost their identity and the combination made one unique scent.

Your explanation lends itself to another term I read, "complex" scents.

That makes sense.

Wow, glad you posted that ..... my head was beginning to hurt trying to figure out what they were talking about ......

Originally Posted by gugi

See, in my view what it boils down to is whether senior members like you are interested in putting down their thoughts on specific product in a 'review' form. If there is interest I would most certainly put in the infrastructure.

But if that is not a form that people like, then setting up a system is not worth my effort. May be people prefer to simply answer questions and write down the same thing as a response to a question instead of a review they've initiated.

One way or another I think that if somebody wants to find out something they can do a search and if they can't find the information or want more, they can ask and usually will get some responses.

What 'reviews' do is they offer better structure so it's easier to find the information. It's much easier when looking for a reviews on a product to just go to a 'review' section then find the product in there and read through those, than it is to do a general search on that product name, and then sift through threads that mention the product.

But, all this depends not on how many people want the information in such a form, but on how many people are willing to sit down and do a write up. And that's exactly what has been missing.

Now if 20 senior members commit to writing one review every 6 or 12 months I will put in a proper review infrastructure. I may be able to even convert these old reviews and fold them into it. But it all has to start with the fundamentals - I have asked about interest in the past and have gotten exactly zero responses 'Yes, I'll be willing to write a review once or twice a year'. And if you go around the site you won't see many reviews in a simple thread form which anybody can do at any time and doesn't need permission or special structure.

What I will do, should you decide to create a Reviews forum, is review every aftershave and soap I have. I will also review Shapton hones. I can review the scuttles I used, even though I don't use them any more. It's hard to review a razor, because if it's honed right, they all work pretty much the same to me. For the past week I've been working on a razor I couldn't fix so I sought professional help. So I wouldn't want to review that razor because I don't know what's wrong with it.

I think it should be reviewed in the writer's own words, without rating scales, look-up guide, pictures (unless we upload our own), etc. That way it won't be lost when the program is updated. I think having to rate various criteria on a scale of 1 to 10 was a deterrent to writing these reviews.

I don't use reviews any more, but remember a time when I did. The best way to sustain a forum is to nurture new shavers. I try to help people because current and prior members helped me. Then they pass the torch and nurture yet another generation.

I have found many tips and reviews within the threads on products as I read. I found a soap and a cream that I like very much because members swore by them. When it comes to reviews you have to consider the source in order to gain more perspective in my opinion. I am not sure what the reviews looked like at SRP but from Glen's post I would say we aren't missing much. Maybe why it's dead. If it was so great where is the outcry and poll trying to bring it back ?
Here is another point >> If you want to know what people here think about something just post a thread and ask. That seems simple enough to me.