Archive for February, 2009

Sorry, everyone. My computer has been ailing for a while, and I was hoping to get by until some revenue came in, but it didn’t quite make it.

The good news is I should be able to get a new one in a week or so. But until then, I’m going to be offline.

Leaford’s New and Improved Reviewing System

Hi, it’s been several months since I made my reviewing system, and I have learned a lot since then, so it seemed like time to update the system. I appreciate that many people like my current system as it is, but I’ve always believed that nothing is so perfect it can’t be improved. And more, if you don’t re-examine your own methods and beliefs from time to time, you can’t learn or grow. And if you aren’t learning or growing, all you’re doing is waiting to die.

I had a couple of things in mind to improve; first I wanted to get rid of the subcategories, and reduce the number of performance measures to 5, both to make it more concise and easy to explain, and because I found that each individual performance measure used to be too diluted by being averaged then averaged again, under the original system.

Secondly, I wanted to eliminate the appearance and build quality category, and stick to performance based categories. Those two got kind of shoehorned together and were never a comfortable fit. Appearance is too subjective and doesn’t need to be rated on a 1 to 5 scale anyway. And build quality is too seldom an issue, so it can be just mentioned in the narrative review.

And third, I wanted to add cartridge life as a rated category.

I am keeping the 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being unacceptable, 2 being poor, 3 being average or good, 4 being excellent, and 5 being outstanding. And I will keep the same relative values for the categories I am keeping, so those scores will still be comparable to the older reviews. And of course, I will still be evaluating all devices for several days before making my judgments, and writing and filming the review.

So the new rating system looks like this:
Performance measures:
1) Vapor Production; Where a 1 is little to no vapor, 2 is thin and wispy, 3 is acceptable (most minis fall here), 4 is excellent (most penstyles fall here), and 5 is outstanding (Sedansa Diva or Janty Classic are examples). However, for a few high vapor devices, I will allow 1 or even 2 bonus points, so they can earn a 6 out of 5.

2) Ease of Draw; Where a 5 is like sipping water through a straw, 3 is like a slurpy, and a 1 is a thick milkshake.

3) Battery life; Based on 5-second inhalations, where a 1 is 40 inhalations or more, a 2 is 60, 3 is 80, 4 is 100, and 120 or more would be a 5. Again, for extremely high battery life, I may allow 1 or 2 bonus points.

4) Cartridge life; Also based on 5-second inhalations, where a 1 is 20, 2 is 40, 3 is 60, 4 is 80, and 5 is 100 puffs. Again, for extremely high cartridge life, I may allow 1 or 2 bonus points.

5) Reliability and ease of use; this is a broader category than I would have liked, but I needed to combine something to keep under 5 measures, and these seemed the best fit. Mostly, this will represent the switch performance, but will also include things like atomizers that need to be warmed up with a lot of primer puffs, LEDS that aren’t clearly visible to the user, noisy atomizers, and basically anything else affecting performance.

These 5 performance measures will be averaged into an Overall Performance score.

Besides rating the performance measures objectively, I also wanted to start giving a ranking score, which will of course derive first from the performance ratings, but will also allow me to include my personal, subjective opinion, and also other factors like price, customer service, company reputation, etc.

This will be a 5 tier system, where the Top Tier, or Top Shelf, is wholeheartedly recommended, the Second Tier or Shelf is recommended but with reservations or cautions. The Middle Tier is acceptable, but not really recommended (they work, but there are better for the price, as one example). The Lower Shelf is not recommended, and the Bottom Shelf is strongly recommended against.

So, a review template would look like this:

Template———————————————————————–
Name:
Model:
Category:
Website:
Price:
Shipping, tax, etc.:
Warranty/Guarantee:

Tier Ranking:
What I Like:
The Downside:

Overall Performance:
1) Vapor Production:
2) Ease of Draw:
3) Battery Life:
4) Cartridge Life:
5) Reliability and Ease of Use:

Customer Service Experience:

Contents:
Extras:

Battery charging times:
Interchangeable with:

Narrative review:
———————————————–

In addition, I am going to try to use a more uniform format for my videos; first an introduction, including a mock un-boxing to show the packaging and what is included, the pros and cons, and my tier ranking. Second, the body of the review, including the ratings, and last a demo portion including any comparisons to other models, any tips or tricks, maybe even accessories.

I have also taken the discussion a couple weeks ago on e-cigarette-forum about inhalation techniques to heart. It seems there are two major types of smokers, and therefore e-smokers. There are those who inhale the smoke or vapor directly down into their lungs, and those who first collect the smoke in their mouth, and then inhale. I was always a direct inhaler with analog cigarettes, and actually didn’t realize other people mouthed their smoke like a cigar or pipe, before inhaling. What’s more, a poll I conducted showed that mouth-puffers were a clear majority, by well over 2 to 1.

So, I have spent the past couple weeks practicing the mouth-puff method, and will be using it a lot more in my videos. I will try to demonstrate both inhalation methods, and include in my evaluation whether the device being reviewed works better with one method or the other. In a few cases, I think the mouth-puff method would really have changed my opinion of some devices I’ve reviewed in the past, like the Smoke 51, which performs better with a mouth-puff than a direct inhalation. Or the Sedansa Diva, which is actually TOO easy a draw for the mouth-puff method to feel comfortable, although it is ideal for direct inhaling.

And, personally, I have started to use the mouth puff method most of the time. Like I said, you learn and you grow, or else you’ve already started dying.

Throat Kick is another thing I will start including. When I switched from direct inhaling to mouth puffing, I started to notice throat kick more. When you direct inhale you always get fierce throat kick, which is why I always preferred smoother e-liquids. When I started mouth puffing, I was better able to detect the differences in throat kick between one e-cig and another. So, I will start including info on that, but since it’s new to me, I won’t be scoring it or averaging it into the performance stats, I will just discuss it. Perhaps in the future, after I’ve built up a larger mental database on which to base my judgments.

So, that’s the new system. Same same, just different.