<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: September Contest Winner</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stogiereview.com/2008/10/11/september-contest-winner/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2008/10/11/september-contest-winner/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=september-contest-winner</link>
	<description>Cigar reviews with a video twist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:42:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2008/10/11/september-contest-winner/#comment-56885</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:07:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=1358#comment-56885</guid>
		<description>Well, I hazard to say that numbers have their value for summarzing and &quot;ballparking&quot; a smoke.  Let&#039;s not forget reviewers who assign a number also report flavors, construction, burn etc.  I have not seen a review that was just a bare, unexplained number (except for advertising, which is not a review).  This site seems to &quot;go beyond the numbers&quot; but it does appear that the reviewers do end up summarzing their experience with standard words that just as well could be numbers (i.e. would defintely recommend, like it a lot, etc.)   When it comes down to it, a review is a review.  Some are more verbose than others, and some have the real estate to publish lengthy ideas from the reviewer.  Since the smoking experience is so subjective, I believe the true value is in getting a ballpark handle on what the cigar is like, then determing which ones I should actually try.  I suppose some people derive entertainment from the mere watching of a smoking experience but, at least for me, I am looking for some key facts to decide whether I should pick one up to try.  Short reviews with a summary number do this well in many cases.  From this angle, the new slogan seems a bit negative.  Instead of purely promoting a positive feature, the slogan hinges on implying that there is something wrong with the number based summary method.  Going &quot;beyond&quot; tends to imply that it improves upon or exceeds something pre-existing.  The two methods are different; both are useful.  One is not superior to the other.  Just my two cents....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I hazard to say that numbers have their value for summarzing and &#8220;ballparking&#8221; a smoke.  Let&#8217;s not forget reviewers who assign a number also report flavors, construction, burn etc.  I have not seen a review that was just a bare, unexplained number (except for advertising, which is not a review).  This site seems to &#8220;go beyond the numbers&#8221; but it does appear that the reviewers do end up summarzing their experience with standard words that just as well could be numbers (i.e. would defintely recommend, like it a lot, etc.)   When it comes down to it, a review is a review.  Some are more verbose than others, and some have the real estate to publish lengthy ideas from the reviewer.  Since the smoking experience is so subjective, I believe the true value is in getting a ballpark handle on what the cigar is like, then determing which ones I should actually try.  I suppose some people derive entertainment from the mere watching of a smoking experience but, at least for me, I am looking for some key facts to decide whether I should pick one up to try.  Short reviews with a summary number do this well in many cases.  From this angle, the new slogan seems a bit negative.  Instead of purely promoting a positive feature, the slogan hinges on implying that there is something wrong with the number based summary method.  Going &#8220;beyond&#8221; tends to imply that it improves upon or exceeds something pre-existing.  The two methods are different; both are useful.  One is not superior to the other.  Just my two cents&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kevin veling</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2008/10/11/september-contest-winner/#comment-56843</link>
		<dc:creator>kevin veling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:45:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=1358#comment-56843</guid>
		<description>congrat&#039;s to ryan, but slogan kinda suck&#039;s..
anyone who smoke&#039;s cigar&#039;s and frequant&#039;s site&#039;s like this know the c.a. # system is bogus. that&#039;s why we come to your site to get real review&#039;s. so, &quot;go beyond the number&#039;s&quot; is redundant for most who visit your site. just my humble opion !!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>congrat&#8217;s to ryan, but slogan kinda suck&#8217;s..<br />
anyone who smoke&#8217;s cigar&#8217;s and frequant&#8217;s site&#8217;s like this know the c.a. # system is bogus. that&#8217;s why we come to your site to get real review&#8217;s. so, &#8220;go beyond the number&#8217;s&#8221; is redundant for most who visit your site. just my humble opion !!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2008/10/11/september-contest-winner/#comment-56756</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=1358#comment-56756</guid>
		<description>Congrats Ryan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Congrats Ryan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Islandak</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2008/10/11/september-contest-winner/#comment-56666</link>
		<dc:creator>Islandak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 01:41:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=1358#comment-56666</guid>
		<description>Congrats to Ryan! The new tagline does capture a lot about the site. I think it works. It&#039;s not terribly descriptive, but I don&#039;t think the tagline would make someone click a link more often (unless is said &quot;Free Cigars!&quot;) LOL</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Congrats to Ryan! The new tagline does capture a lot about the site. I think it works. It&#8217;s not terribly descriptive, but I don&#8217;t think the tagline would make someone click a link more often (unless is said &#8220;Free Cigars!&#8221;) LOL</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason T</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2008/10/11/september-contest-winner/#comment-56662</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason T</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:23:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=1358#comment-56662</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s exactly what I was thinking David. CA ratings mean squat. Congrats Ryan! Great tag.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s exactly what I was thinking David. CA ratings mean squat. Congrats Ryan! Great tag.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: david</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2008/10/11/september-contest-winner/#comment-56656</link>
		<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:58:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=1358#comment-56656</guid>
		<description>it&#039;s a little vague, newer smokers might not catch on right away.  I like the idea though, it&#039;s a jab at the CA!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it&#8217;s a little vague, newer smokers might not catch on right away.  I like the idea though, it&#8217;s a jab at the CA!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Al Nelson</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2008/10/11/september-contest-winner/#comment-56653</link>
		<dc:creator>Al Nelson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:44:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=1358#comment-56653</guid>
		<description>Right on bro.  Works for me</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right on bro.  Works for me</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic (Feed is rejected)
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 1/5 queries in 0.003 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 381/382 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.stogiereview.com @ 2012-02-09 10:58:21 -->
