Search for Events

Let's Connect!

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Subscribe to Blog via RSS

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

symposium-logo-large

2010  Fellowship Recipient

Our Twitter Feed

Follow me on twitter
Let the Wine 2.0 Enthusiast Beware PDF Print E-mail
Trends
Written by Fred Swan   
Monday, 01 March 2010 20:15

Sharing of information via the internet impacts the life of almost every human being on the planet, even those without computers. It has led to faster development of medicines and technologies. It enables more rapid and effective response to natural disasters. It gives voice to protestors in totalitarian countries. And it empowers consumers to find the very best Pinot Grigio.

CellarTracker has been chief among the wine-focused web sites that give power to the people. With nearly 100,000 users, almost 1.25 million consumer-generated wine reviews and Google-search cred that puts it among the top search results for many wines, it is a go-to site for people wondering whether they should buy this wine or that one. Unfortunately, even in America, not all consumers are created equal. To be blunt, some of them are idiots. I was reminded of this today while perusing CellarTracker's consumer review database to get a pulse on how its users perceived the quality of a handful of small Sonoma County wineries.

There were two reviews in particular that caused my eyebrows to raise and my mood to darken. They were conflicting reviews for exactly the same wine posted just four days apart. Here they are:
1. Strawberry, crushed berries, spice, and some vanilla on the nose. Big body with plenty of spice, fruit *and* structure. Delicious, especially on day 2. 98 points.
2. Crushed berries, spice, vanilla. Big, juicy wine with decent structure. 87 points.

Both reviews are positive and are united on the crushed berries, spice and vanilla. After that, they deviate. One reviewer thinks the wine is amazing. 98 points are given out very, very rarely by professional reviewers. They denote a wine that is nearly perfect. This is a score for cult Cabs in a career year. The highly sought-after Chateau Petrus, according to Wine Spectator, has achieved that level of quality just eight times from 1949 to today. Domaine de la Romanée-Conti's La Tache received 98 points just twice in the 20th century. So, "Wow!," I'm thinking. "This must really be some Zinfandel. Zinfandel?"

The 2nd review is much more conservative. 87 points is a solid score, indicative of a good wine. You'd be very happy to use the wine as an "every day drinker." On the other hand, you wouldn't want to pay too much for it, ponder it deeply over a long evening, or trot it out at a restaurant with clients you're trying to impress.

"No problem," you say. "Just disregard the the first review. The dude is crazy." Fair enough. But wait. Those reviews were posted by the same guy! Go ahead. Smack your forehead. I know you want to.

It was easy for me to spot this bozo, because his comments on this particular wine were right next to each other. But what about the wines he reviews just once? How do you spot him then? And how do you know in general whether a review has been posted by someone responsible or by Sippy the Tasting Clown?

Let me be clear. I am not criticizing CellarTracker. They offer a lot of excellent functionality and, overall, are of tremendous benefit to wine consumers. They just can't protect you from Sippy. You have to do that for yourself. Don't just look at the numbers when you're reading reviews on Wine 2.0 sites. Look at the reviewers. Click on their name. See how many wines they have reviewed. Look at some of those reviews to see how they score wines that you know well. Check their user profile. See if other people have listed them as a favorite taster. Then check the credibility of those people.

Yes, that is tedious. It's work. But the ability to register oneself on a Wine 2.0 site does not necessarily coincide with intelligence or quality of palate. And you don't want to pay good money for wine based on reviews from someone with a tongue of stone.

Wine 2.0 reviews can be helpful. But you need to use them carefully. And they aren't going to put professional reviewers out of a job anytime soon. I'm sure Robert Parker will be relieved to read this...

This article is original to NorCalWine.com. Copyright 2010 NorCal Wine. All rights reserved.

Follow NorCalWine on Twitter for breaking wine news, information on events and more. Become a fan and join the NorCal Wine community on Facebook.
Also check out our comprehensive Northern California winery listings. They are very useful for planning a tasting trip or just getting in touch with a winery.



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
 

3 Comments

Feed
  1. Good point about reviewers on not just CellarTracker, but also similar sites like Snooth and Corkd, plus every wine blogger out there (including myself).

    I'd say the same advice goes for professional reviewers, who often have divergent opinions about wines. I recently acquired a bottle of domestic bubbly that Wine Spectator gave 95 points, while Charlie Olken of CGCW gave it an 86. That is a wide spread for a $55 bottle. It will be interesting to see where my personal opinion lies once I try the wine. That is why I pay more attention to the notes than the scores.
  2. This article would have been so much more complete if the author had contacted the reviewer in question to understand the disparity in scores. It's possible one of the scores was simply a typo.
  3. Hi Dale,

    Thank you very much for the constructive criticism. It is appreciated. That said, I think you have overstated things slightly. The article would have been a little bit more complete if I had corresponded with the reviewer, not a lot. Unfortunately, the reviewer's profile is not public, so that option was not available to me.

    In addition, I would say the following:
    1. Whether or not one of the reviews was a typo, they both exist on the site and continue to confuse rather than enlighten.
    2. I don't believe either review to have been a typo. Certainly, the reviewer might have typed "9" instead of "8" or vice versa. However, his words and the impression they create are also different. For example, the first review says "fruit *and* structure" The asterisks are clearly purposeful and intended to emphasize structure. The second review says "juicy wine with decent structure." Those are two very different reviews and clearly not typos. I included this text in my article.
    3. I have posted reviews on CellarTracker and see no way to delete my own review once posted. So, it seems that it is possible to accidentally rate a wine better or worse than one would like yet not be able to delete or edit that review. This suggests to me that the (old) CellarTracker interface is flawed in that it either doesn't allow such edits or, should such edits be possible, makes the editing process very difficult to understand. I have not reviewed the new interface.
    4. I did not search far and wide to find the review upon which I based my article. They were at the very top of the page for the very first winery I searched on that day. With more than a million reviews in the database, I can't believe these are the only ones that are flawed. That would be quite the coincidence.
    5. All of the items above lead back to my overall premise. One should not take advice from strangers blindly. One should seek to understand who is giving the advice and then judge for oneself the validity of that advice. The value of wine at auction increases substantially with good provenance. Why should the value of wine reviews not increase with provenance or decrease in its absence?

Add Comment




    Click to get a new image.