A review doesn't need to adhere to any particular format. It's entirely insipid to describe a rope as reminiscent of excrement as some contribution to insight. In this visual age of the internet, you can see a picture. Regurgitation of the header description is useless filler. Methodology of preparation and smoking speak more to that individual's experience, than some objective reliable assessment of the qualities of that being evaluated.
A context of understanding is necessary. If their preferences accord with mine, I take seriously what is said, even if only a few lines. I habitually read all of the reviewer's reviews to establish a sense of credibility, comparing to my own frames of reference. Some of the most prolific reviewers have the least credibility: The reviewers I hold as credible can write a one-liner that has more weight than a book from someone who feels compelled to opine about any and everything. In any event, those who value small beer, schoolchildren crying about nicotine, may be interesting reading, but have no more value than white noise. Similarly, my opinion of nicotine-free tobaccos is of little value. My saying it bites is more indicative of my overdrawing or moisture content (my responsibility), than the characteristics for the 'smoking mixture' fan that may not have that issue.
I look for the reviewer to address relevant issues. Citations of comparative tobaccos can be useful in illustrating a point, and establishing a frame of reference. If Sasha says this is ok, but I like so-and-so better, I have useful information. Ultimately, I'll try both, but the one before the other, and a smaller amount rather than greater. The point here is that that reviewer, until disproved, has established credibility, not through an avalanche of formulaic correct words about a particular blend, but by a consistency of perspective across many, a few choice words each time.
Finally, the preferences of mentors are elevated to high priority, Bosun Cut Plug! Walnut and Haddo's Delight. Indeed. And, those 'reviews' came only as profile, the most credible reviews I have seen yet. I only regret that I hadn't come here sooner, from a world of mostly irrelevant blathering.
