Review thread/discussion threads seperated?

[Adaox]

I was wondering if anyone has made a review template? Furthermore if FC has thought about perhaps having the discussion and reviews separated. Currently the way it's set up, I have a hard time reading peoples individual reviews as specifics get discussed.

Maybe this would work for a basic template:

Taste: 1-10
Ease of use: 1-10
Design: 1-10
Heating element:
Controllable temp? Yes/No
Temp Range: (or set temp if no above)

Thoughts and notes and quirks:

Personal use:


This would leave you looking at what most people find important, and their personal takes on it. With no discussion. (reviews are opinions after all and we can discus about opinions all day long.)

I think this would be much cleaner and more efficient when it comes to looking into new vapes within this community.

I don't know if this will help at all, but just some thoughts after looking at how clean your "for sale" section is.

Also it might make people a bit more keen on leaving reviews.

 

[aesthyrian]

A simple, defined format for reviews would be a nice addition.

 

[Adaox]

I'm sure I may have missed things. Feel free to add to what I started so maybe we can create that?

 

[vtac]

Currently the way it's set up, I have a hard time reading peoples individual reviews as specifics get discussed.

Can you explain what makes it difficult for you?

A set of criteria could be useful but personally I wouldn't want to force people to use a template; it couldn't hope to cover every vape out there and I enjoy reading the thoughtful and colorful reviews our members write without a cookie-cutter guide.

As for separating reviews from discussion threads, that's a tough one. Personally I feel that it makes sense to keep it in one thread. Yes, the threads for popular models are long but that's just how it goes. I can see how that could be intimidating to a newcomer, but would you really prefer to have to search through a bunch of threads instead of one? Either way you're going to have to do some reading and it's not that hard to skim through threads and zero in on the informative posts. Do appreciate the comments and ideas though, hope you can find what you're looking for!

Here's an example of a good review just posted in model thread it's concerning: http://www.fuckcombustion.com/viewtopic.php?pid=107119#p107119

 

[Adaox]

Eh my thoughts are just those... take em for what you will.

The template was an idea/guide. The reviews as they are, are great. The template just makes it a little more easy to fill in and get people started on reviewing.

As far as splitting the thread, the thought is this. I personally look at the two differently. I like to see reviews alone as it lets me average them out quickly. While discussion can go many different ways. On any popular model you'd still only have two threads. Reviews here, discussion here. Period. It's just cleaner and more efficient way of gathering information.

For those of us that are just looking for reviews in that moment, it's current design is a bit clunky given you have to browse a lot to find the posts you're actually looking for sifted thru pages of back and forth. While those who want to exchange dialogue can in a discussion thread.

Just something I've seen done before for certain games. Seems to make threads cleaner.

In the end it may just be the way my mind works. A review is a statement and is done after it's read/written. While a discussion can move and grove as those involved see fit.

Once again, take it for a grain of salt... I'm happy to contribute as best I can anyways.

 

[Nycdeisel]

I think Im with vtac on this one, besides, theres some pretty lengthy threads already, it probably wouldnt make sense to now take all of that and try to organize it in the fashion you described. However, I think ideas are welcome(as long as this isnt crossing over that moderator line ) and its cool to think of ways to improve things.

I found it pretty confusing at first, since prior I was on a much larger smoking forum, and I made an account here but the way things were laid out turned me off a bit, but now I seem to be finding my way around here just fine(for the most part, anyway) things are pretty neat since its all in one place, but many posts do get buried in the longer threads.

Anyway, welcome
see you around

 

[Nosferatu]

I agree with Adaox, no offence at all to the moderators, but I think having one thread per vape is ridiculous. I love this forum and its the only one I post on, but I think each vape should have its own forum. So you can click the "MFLB" forum where there is a sticky on top for all general info and questions/tips on the vape. Then maybe a review thread and the rest is for questions and discussion. Or even a forum per company like "7th Floor Forum" and so on. Then a cooking forum still, the vapor lounge, there will always be new ones to add also.

I just feel like most sites that do this are so much easier to navigate and fun to be on. I know FC has a smaller user base and maybe thats why it would be overkill to do this, but I think its a step forward that will allow this site to grow. And sorry but the mods are so quick to say its no problem reading these long, sometimes off topic threads to get what info may or may not be in there, but its a hige turnoff. I'm pretty patient and get discouraged looking through 100 pages of users arguing just to fish out useful info. And I'm not trying to start things, this forum has the smartest collection of minds on the subject, and I want to see this site grow, even though its going to be HELL for you guys to redo a whole site like that, I think its the most important step forward. So just curious has this ever been a thought for you moderators? If so is there a reason it wouldnt work I'm not thinking of?

 

[Adaox]

masbanji92 has the jist of my message down I think. Reworking the whole boards could take time, but this community and it's minds is what turned me on about this place... making it a bit easier to navigate may be overhaul, but it could spurn on much more use/action.

I didn't mean to step on any toes, by any means.

 

[AGBeer]

I see your point(s) and agree/disagree with them at the same time.

From a posters perspective, I can agree with some of your talking points and I will definitely take some of those suggestions into play when drafting up a review of sorts (kind of cut to the chase) But at the same time, my thoughts (and most importantly IMO) 'feelings' towards a vape arent always cookie cutter (as stated before)

As far as a logistics/moderation standpoint - giving each vape its own subfoum would (could) be a moderation nightmare. I currently help moderate another forum that deals with the good ole USA (namely the states...) add in the sub forums for respective cities, plus your off topic and special interest sub forums - it can become a challenge for moderators (and a target for spammers at that) PLUS, as a site owner, my boss (head mod man) has to entrust that many more people with keys to the kingdom to help ensure smooth operations.

Sometimes bigger isnt always better

 

[Beezleb]

I see it as simply as no needing to fix something that is not really broken. If it was other ways we would still have these types of I Know better posts, no insult or negative connotation meant, about some other aspect.

When dealing with information their are many ways to manage it but we are forum not a dictating machine. Keep in mind, it is about the information and not about us.

I would like to see the first page of a topics thread about a vaporizer be edited with the latest information on it so a person could quickly see in essence a FAQ bit about that vaporizer but that is far easier said than done. Sort of what I do with the Swamp water post. When people add something beneficial I will add it to the main post, though I see swamp water as an evolving thing.

The only real thing I would like to see better is for search to be able to point to the exact post instead of just a thread.

 

[notmyrealUSERname]

i think some threads are too long.

what if posters had a way to tag their post - i.e. if i post a review then ill tag it with a symbol of some sort, like R*.
or if i am posting conversational 'info', then tag it with a C*.
or if i am posting an answer to a question, then tag it with a A*
or there could be other ways to tag...

the search engine could be more effective this way too - im guessing.

its something we could start anytime. and if people wanted to go back and edit some of their own posts it could also be a (somewhat) retroactive upgrade without causing too much work for one person.

it wouldn't change the structure of the forums in any way.


just my

 

[vtac]

I would like to see the first page of a topics thread about a vaporizer be edited with the latest information on it so a person could quickly see in essence a FAQ bit about that vaporizer but that is far easier said than done.

I think this would be an excellent idea. It could contain links to informative/review posts within the thread as well. As you say it's easier said than done and would require some commitment by the thread starter/maintainer, but something to think about.

We also have www.vaporpedia.com at our disposal and excellent work by members such as the MFLB article gives an idea of what's possible.

The only real thing I would like to see better is for search to be able to point to the exact post instead of just a thread.

This is possible, instructions are available in the how to search sticky.

 

[htroy]

I would like to see the first page of a topics thread about a vaporizer be edited with the latest information on it so a person could quickly see in essence a FAQ bit about that vaporizer but that is far easier said than done.

I think this would be an excellent idea. It could contain links to informative/review posts within the thread as well. As you say it's easier said than done and would require some commitment by the thread starter/maintainer, but something to think about.

We also have Packet 8 Reviews at our disposal and excellent work by members such as the Callcentric Reviews gives an idea of what's possible.

The only real thing I would like to see better is for search to be able to point to the exact post instead of just a thread.

This is possible, instructions are available in the how to search sticky.

_____
AGREED~~
I feel the very same way and will abide by it

 

[Vapemania-original]

Sorry about this folks, but I think Adaox is right.
Also, notmyrealUSERname came up with a genius idea of ordering posts so its easier to sift through them.

Essentially, there are a lot of FC viewers who are very comfortable with the lay of the land. Any alteration to the website will irritate anyone who has to change the way they navigate the website.

However, a lot of people will ONLY come on FC when they want to buy a new vape or learn about vaping. After that, they'll go on their merry way and occasionally return to the website.
It is these people (probably young, male, impressionable, not much money - at least thats how I was) we need to think about.

In my view, you can actually determine a good vaporiser from a bad one. Its not about the individual toking, its about the device.
If you don't believe me, then why do you review cars, kitchen appliances, electrical items, before buying them.

If we can agree that you can tell the difference between a good vaporiser and a bad vaporiser, then the idea of a 'review template' becomes natural and obvious.
For example, Amazon has a star rating system but they keep the individuality of each reviewer. Alternatively, review websites have a small group of people constantly checking out devices. Their opinions on a separate thread may be more influential than someone with just one vape.

 

[pakalolo]

There is no reason why someone can't post a list of points to consider when writing a review, or a list of suggested tag-words that would make searching easier. Nobody would be forced to use them but those who like the idea could encourage and promote their use.

My wish is that more people would make use of Vaporpedia. I don't mean that reviews should be posted there, but each vaporizer could have a section of links to useful review posts.

 

[Vapemania-original]

Going onto Vaporpedia to check out vaporisers sounds like a good idea, but it isn't very helpful.

Ths is because:

1. You're not on FC. Thus you don't know who is making the statements on Vaporpedia. Wth FC, you know who the reviewer is, how long they've been registered to FC and even what vapes they use. You don't get that assurance on Vaporpedia.

2. Vaporpedia is basically a market stall for companies to advertise their products. That's not the same as reviewing a vaporiser to see if it's worth buying.
For example, on the 'Zephyr Ion' page it states it has 'many more features... than other vaporizers currently on the market'. Also, it states it is a 'safer and more efficient way to use aromatherapy'.

Now think about it. If your friend bought the ZI, do you really want to tell them that Vaporpedia doesn't mention the fact that there are 'concerns and questions raised by the government' about the product. Also, the ZI is now no longer being manufactured?

Ok, you can find that out eventually by going onto the ZI website. But this bit of controversy is omitted on Vaporpedia. On Wikipedia, this controversy would be well documented. But then again, Wiki is on a different level altogether.

 

[momatik]

What if we were to go through the threads, grab the hyperlinks to good posts (FAQs, Reviews, etc.) and modify the original topic post to include these urls?

It'd take a while, but it doesn't have to be done in a day either. A few members could work on a thread each. If we organize it so 1 person does pgs 1-10, then another 11-20, etc. it can work.

For the MFLB, PD, and Zap threads, I think it might be easier to ask members to message mods with URLs to good useful posts they made in these threads.

 

[pakalolo]

Going onto Vaporpedia to check out vaporisers sounds like a good idea, but it isn't very helpful.

Ths is because:

1. You're not on FC. Thus you don't know who is making the statements on Vaporpedia. Wth FC, you know who the reviewer is, how long they've been registered to FC and even what vapes they use. You don't get that assurance on Vaporpedia.

2. Vaporpedia is basically a market stall for companies to advertise their products. That's not the same as reviewing a vaporiser to see if it's worth buying.
For example, on the 'Zephyr Ion' page it states it has 'many more features... than other vaporizers currently on the market'. Also, it states it is a 'safer and more efficient way to use aromatherapy'.

Now think about it. If your friend bought the ZI, do you really want to tell them that Vaporpedia doesn't mention the fact that there are 'concerns and questions raised by the government' about the product. Also, the ZI is now no longer being manufactured?

Ok, you can find that out eventually by going onto the ZI website. But this bit of controversy is omitted on Vaporpedia. On Wikipedia, this controversy would be well documented. But then again, Wiki is on a different level altogether.

First, I did not suggest that Vaporpedia be used for reviews, I specifically suggested links to reviews--from FC or anywhere else, for that matter.

Second, Vaporpedia is not an advertising vehicle. Some marketing puffery might have made it into some entries. There's hardly any as far as I can see, and I suspect I'm a lot more familiar with the contents than you seem to be.

The intent of Vaporpedia is to provide an informative entry for a vaporizer that describes the features and provides useful facts about using and maintaining the device. It is also intended to define and explain various terms and procedures associated with vaporizing. Of course the success of this depends on the contributors.

You are correct that no one updated the Ion page, and that is a serious oversight, but Vaporpedia is supposed to be a user-maintained resource and this goes to my desire to have more participation. Once you noted that omission, you could have fixed it yourself, as I just did. Singling out one failure is hardly proof that Vaporpedia is anything, let alone a "market stall".

Adding material and fixing problems can only improve Vaporpedia and help make it a better resource. Spreading misconceptions and resisting its use obviously won't help.

 

[Vapemania-original]

I'm sorry you think I'm spreading misconceptions about Vaporpedia.

Your signature refers to the MFLB page on Vaporpedia.

There is not one single person from FC or any independent person on the planet who has contributed to that page.

It all comes from Magic Flight.

I have found the page very helpful myself. But thats AFTER I bought the product.

Pages on Wikipedia do not depend on the majority of its content from private companies.

Yes, Vaporpedia will be better if we all contribute.
But we aren't.
Only the companies selling their products are contributing. So I have no choice but to refer to FC and similar websites.

 

[pakalolo]

I'm sorry you think I'm spreading misconceptions about Vaporpedia.

Your signature refers to the MFLB page on Vaporpedia.

There is not one single person from FC or any independent person on the planet who has contributed to that page.

It all comes from Magic Flight.

I have found the page very helpful myself. But thats AFTER I bought the product.

Pages on Wikipedia do not depend on the majority of its content from private companies.

Yes, Vaporpedia will be better if we all contribute.
But we aren't.
Only the companies selling their products are contributing. So I have no choice but to refer to FC and similar websites.

I don't just think you are spreading misconceptions, I know you are.

I created the MFLB entry for Vaporpedia. There was nothing commercial about it. I am not and have never been associated with Magic-Flight. They did not ask me to do it. I did it because there was a need, and because I was hoping to do something about the repetitive questions in the MFLB thread. I didn't expect to reduce the questions, but I thought I could reduce the number of repetitive answers and I like to think I did. The MFLB entry is by far and away the most viewed page on Vaporpedia. I have created several other Vaporpedia entries and I can assure you that none of them was marketing-inspired.

Here's something you might ponder: the FC community in general takes pride in providing dependable facts and frowns upon personal opinion masquerading as such, even when expressed in sincerity. I hope you see where this is going.

 

[Vapemania-original]

Well, the MFLB page on Vaporpedia has been very useful for me.
I'm pleased to learn someone has taken the time and effort to cut and paste relevant info from a discussion thread (on FC), and then re-present it on Vaporpedia.

However, I'm sure you'll agree that you didn't actually answer the FAQ questions on the MFLB page on Vaporpedia.
The questions were actually answered by Magic Flight on their thread on FC.
So the source of the info on how to use the MFLB is actually the manufacturer.

There is nothing wrong with 'dependable facts' on how to use a vaporiser (as with Vaporpedia).
However, what I'm talking about is reviewing a vaporiser to see if it is worth buying or not. This relies precisely on 'personal opinion' (not dependable facts). The purpose of this thread is to see if these reviews on vaporisers by users can be presented in a structured, simple and consistent way.

There are numerous review threads on FC.
But as notmyrealUSERname suggests, the posts diverge into 'review', 'conversation', and 'answering questions'.
This makes it difficult to find review info on a thread which is over 30 pages long.

Beezleb has suggested an FAQ-style page for each discussion thread which acts as a convenient summary of the whole thread.
Momatik has suggested sifting all the posts, identifying the ones which are helpful reviews, and putting them on a seperate thread.

IMO, this means someone has to look through all the posts and modify them in some way.

I think what Adaox (and myself) are asking for is that people structure their reviews from the outset so no one has to modify it later.
Vtac mentioned you would lose the individuality of the reviewer. Which is true.

But I find the star-based reviews section on Amazon as extremely helpful. Or maybe someone else knows a better way of presenting peoples personal opinion of the worth of a vaporiser, rather than knowing how it works.

 

[lwien]

For me, I LOVE the way FC is currently set up. Why? Because it's NOT just reviews.

Here's the deal. If one want's to read a review, say on the Purple Days, one would start reading through that enormous thread. While reading through those reviews, you will also stumble upon casual back and forth conversations and in those conversations, you will find usage tips and other VERY important info that is not contained in any of the formal reviews.

Is it time consuming to read through these threads? Yup, but the knowledge that one gains not only for making purchasing decisions, but usage tips as well is unrivaled anywhere else.

Could it be laid out a bit better? Sure, but it would take a lot more time and money by the site owners to create it and administer it, and for that to happen, one would then expect to see more advertisements to make it all worthwhile, which would then, in turn, bring into question the validity of the reviews. As it is now, FC is primarily a user driven site set up in a conversational mode, and for me, I would have it no other way.

 

[pakalolo]

Well, the MFLB page on Vaporpedia has been very useful for me.
I'm pleased to learn someone has taken the time and effort to cut and paste relevant info from a discussion thread (on FC), and then re-present it on Vaporpedia.

However, I'm sure you'll agree that you didn't actually answer the FAQ questions on the MFLB page on Vaporpedia.
The questions were actually answered by Magic Flight on their thread on FC.
So the source of the info on how to use the MFLB is actually the manufacturer.

There is nothing wrong with 'dependable facts' on how to use a vaporiser (as with Vaporpedia).
However, what I'm talking about is reviewing a vaporiser to see if it is worth buying or not. This relies precisely on 'personal opinion' (not dependable facts). The purpose of this thread is to see if these reviews on vaporisers by users can be presented in a structured, simple and consistent way.

There are numerous review threads on FC.
But as notmyrealUSERname suggests, the posts diverge into 'review', 'conversation', and 'answering questions'.
This makes it difficult to find review info on a thread which is over 30 pages long.

Beezleb has suggested an FAQ-style page for each discussion thread which acts as a convenient summary of the whole thread.
Momatik has suggested sifting all the posts, identifying the ones which are helpful reviews, and putting them on a seperate thread.

IMO, this means someone has to look through all the posts and modify them in some way.

I think what Adaox (and myself) are asking for is that people structure their reviews from the outset so no one has to modify it later.
Vtac mentioned you would lose the individuality of the reviewer. Which is true.

But I find the star-based reviews section on Amazon as extremely helpful. Or maybe someone else knows a better way of presenting peoples personal opinion of the worth of a vaporiser, rather than knowing how it works.

No, I won't agree that I "didn't actually answer the FAQ questions on the MFLB page on Vaporpedia." This tells me that you didn't read it carefully:

About this Page

Most of the information on this page was compiled from posts made in The Magic-Flight Box Review thread on FuckCombustion.com by magicflight, who represents the Magic-Flight company. Much of the wording is his, but some posts have been merged and edited. Some material is from other contributors. No attempt has been made to distinguish the original author of any material.

When I originally wrote that the proportion of magicflight material to that from others (mostly but by no means exclusively me) was about 3:1. It is now much closer to 2:1. In other words, it was never even close to 100% manufacturer-provided material.

Let me be specific this time: you obviously have an opinion that Vaporpedia is just a marketing platform for vaporizer manufacturers. The easily available facts disprove this, but when they are pointed out you persist in trying to form an argument that supports your opinion. You're entitled to an opinion even when it is demonstrably false, but I will ask you again to stop posting misinformed opinion as if it were fact, please.

 

[lwien]

You're entitled to an opinion even when it is demonstrably false, but I will ask you again to stop posting misinformed opinion as if it were fact, please.

Yeah. Seems to be happening here as well: http://www.fuckcombustion.com/viewtopic.php?id=4463