On the whole, the Lost&Found Don't Sit on the Furniture was an impressive cigar. First and foremost, the construction was fantastic, something I don't get to say much at the moment when many cigars have combustion issues.
Are any of you having issues like this. "Many cigars" having issues?
No
I know, You're a big dog and I'm on the list. Let's eat, GrandMa. / Let's eat GrandMa. -- Punctuation saves lives
On the whole, the Lost&Found Don't Sit on the Furniture was an impressive cigar. First and foremost, the construction was fantastic, something I don't get to say much at the moment when many cigars have combustion issues.
Are any of you having issues like this. "Many cigars" having issues?
Only when i over humidify them 🙄.
This I agree with. User fawking error over at Halfwheel Fullbullshit.
.... shoot enough golf you might drain an Ace. Maybe they finally got one right?
No, it's a 98, not a 91.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
For the record, it got the exact same score as the fuente padron Legends cigar that fuente made.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
I guess I need some numbers guys to help me out here. Is this just a statistical anomaly or do you believe that their grading system plays apart in their scores being so consistent year after year. It's tough for me to believe that year after year after year you can be one point off of your average consistently. Even when it comes down to the exact numbers that they score, 90-93, it's almost identical year over a year aside from the rating of 90. Am I totally nuts to think that this **** is even more rigged than I once thought? Please someone help me explain these consistent numbers here after year especially where the reviewers this year complained about a huge increase in combustion and construction issues. Wouldn't that have skewed the numbers tremendously? But it doesn't seem like it affected it at all. I guess I'm just at a total loss at this point in trying to understand the BS that goes behind these grades.
I call BS on everything they do when it comes to rankings. You have a wedding photographer, a marketer, and one that had a failed attempt at doing what they’re doing now.
@IndustMech said: @Vision you should analyze data from Ernests unbanded contests and see if you see similar results.
They smoked 150-200 cigars for reviews, I smoked about 20. Is 20 year over year a high enough sample tho...?
Run the data, then figure it out. Should be several years of data. Might be interesting.
I think the desired sample size is at least 36. @VegasFrank ?
You only need 24. From there you can plot it and eliminate outliers, then you can do any parametric testing that you want to do.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
But to answer @Vision Pete's question, probably can't discern much from this data, which is why they actually posted it. They would never post any numbers that contradicts the fact that they think they are the authority in this kind of thing. Or at least I believe that.
So assuming that the Data from the screen capture above is accurate, there are a lot of obstacles to analyzing it. Here are the four that I'm most worried about.
First is the question of bias. Is there conscious or unconscious bias in the ratings? For instance, Charlie knows that he has been consistently the toughest grader and he probably wears that as a badge of honor. Does that drive him to be more critical?
Secondly, how did the redux grades factor in? And for those redux grades, did they take new cigars of the same line and regrade them, or did they regrade cigars from the same box and or lot but let them rest for The period of time in between reviews?
Third is the advertisement issue. They wear their lack of bias like a badge of honor because they pay for the smokes or they disclose whether or not they pay for them. However, advertisers have certain expectations, and if Charlie raided 26 Drew estate cigars a sub 60 all in a row, you wouldn't see any more Drew estate banners on their website. They can try to fight that consciously, but if they do, then you know it's not unbiased because they are fighting a bias the other direction.
Finally, to do any sort of analysis at all, we'd have to have the actual entries and not just the roll-up data that's captured in the screens above. Ernest can probably speak to this part, but you'd want to do a blind capture or a double blind capture by having multiple guys smoking the same thing multiple times and rating it multiple times in a way where they don't know what it is. That'd be a little more scientific and total Overkill for this little conversation.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
And there's the rub. We are very biased here too. Ernest blind contest proves that. How can we honestly analyze a person named Charlie that we call Charlene?
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@VegasFrank said:
And there's the rub. We are very biased here too. Ernest blind contest proves that. How can we honestly analyze a person named Charlie that we call Charlene?
@VegasFrank said:
And there's the rub. We are very biased here too. Ernest blind contest proves that. How can we honestly analyze a person named Charlie that we call Charlene?
Biased as in we like Gurkha and Graycliff?
Wait, I thought we only liked Dunbarton and bw and el septimo?
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@VegasFrank said:
And there's the rub. We are very biased here too. Ernest blind contest proves that. How can we honestly analyze a person named Charlie that we call Charlene?
Biased as in we like Gurkha and Graycliff?
Wait, I thought we only liked Dunbarton and bw and el septimo?
Unfortunately I haven't smoked a ton of El Septimo. I'll have to pick some up sometime.
Comments
No
I know, You're a big dog and I'm on the list.
Let's eat, GrandMa. / Let's eat GrandMa. -- Punctuation saves lives
It'll be fine once the swelling goes down.
Only BLTC
My favorite cigar list here
This I agree with. User fawking error over at Halfwheel Fullbullshit.
@VegasFrank @Rdp77
https://halfwheel.com/aj-fernandez-20th-anniversary-toro/445773/
He must have become a new sponsor.
.... shoot enough golf you might drain an Ace. Maybe they finally got one right?
No, it's a 98, not a 91.
For the record, it got the exact same score as the fuente padron Legends cigar that fuente made.
I guess I need some numbers guys to help me out here. Is this just a statistical anomaly or do you believe that their grading system plays apart in their scores being so consistent year after year. It's tough for me to believe that year after year after year you can be one point off of your average consistently. Even when it comes down to the exact numbers that they score, 90-93, it's almost identical year over a year aside from the rating of 90. Am I totally nuts to think that this **** is even more rigged than I once thought? Please someone help me explain these consistent numbers here after year especially where the reviewers this year complained about a huge increase in combustion and construction issues. Wouldn't that have skewed the numbers tremendously? But it doesn't seem like it affected it at all. I guess I'm just at a total loss at this point in trying to understand the BS that goes behind these grades.
@Rdp77 @VegasFrank @anyonewhohaslistenedtomebitchabouttheseguys
@Vision you should analyze data from Ernests unbanded contests and see if you see similar results.
I know, You're a big dog and I'm on the list.
Let's eat, GrandMa. / Let's eat GrandMa. -- Punctuation saves lives
It'll be fine once the swelling goes down.
I call BS on everything they do when it comes to rankings. You have a wedding photographer, a marketer, and one that had a failed attempt at doing what they’re doing now.
They smoked 150-200 cigars for reviews, I smoked about 20. Is 20 year over year a high enough sample tho...?
Run the data, then figure it out. Should be several years of data. Might be interesting.
I know, You're a big dog and I'm on the list.
Let's eat, GrandMa. / Let's eat GrandMa. -- Punctuation saves lives
It'll be fine once the swelling goes down.
I think the desired sample size is at least 36. @VegasFrank ?
I know, You're a big dog and I'm on the list.
Let's eat, GrandMa. / Let's eat GrandMa. -- Punctuation saves lives
It'll be fine once the swelling goes down.
You only need 24. From there you can plot it and eliminate outliers, then you can do any parametric testing that you want to do.
But to answer @Vision Pete's question, probably can't discern much from this data, which is why they actually posted it. They would never post any numbers that contradicts the fact that they think they are the authority in this kind of thing. Or at least I believe that.
So assuming that the Data from the screen capture above is accurate, there are a lot of obstacles to analyzing it. Here are the four that I'm most worried about.
First is the question of bias. Is there conscious or unconscious bias in the ratings? For instance, Charlie knows that he has been consistently the toughest grader and he probably wears that as a badge of honor. Does that drive him to be more critical?
Secondly, how did the redux grades factor in? And for those redux grades, did they take new cigars of the same line and regrade them, or did they regrade cigars from the same box and or lot but let them rest for The period of time in between reviews?
Third is the advertisement issue. They wear their lack of bias like a badge of honor because they pay for the smokes or they disclose whether or not they pay for them. However, advertisers have certain expectations, and if Charlie raided 26 Drew estate cigars a sub 60 all in a row, you wouldn't see any more Drew estate banners on their website. They can try to fight that consciously, but if they do, then you know it's not unbiased because they are fighting a bias the other direction.
Finally, to do any sort of analysis at all, we'd have to have the actual entries and not just the roll-up data that's captured in the screens above. Ernest can probably speak to this part, but you'd want to do a blind capture or a double blind capture by having multiple guys smoking the same thing multiple times and rating it multiple times in a way where they don't know what it is. That'd be a little more scientific and total Overkill for this little conversation.
This also goes to show who the readers are....
And there's the rub. We are very biased here too. Ernest blind contest proves that. How can we honestly analyze a person named Charlie that we call Charlene?
Biased as in we like Gurkha and Graycliff?
Wait, I thought we only liked Dunbarton and bw and el septimo?
Unfortunately I haven't smoked a ton of El Septimo. I'll have to pick some up sometime.
@OutdoorsSmoke_21191 You taking notes?