Search for Events
Subscribe to Blog via RSS

2010 Fellowship Recipient
- Cabernet Sauvignon
- Kosher wine
- Napa Valley wineries
- Wine Humor
- Viticulture
- Wine Book Reviews
- Wine Education
- Wine Personalities
- Rhone varietals
- Wine Tasting Events
- White Wine
- Red Wine
- Fortified Wine
- Sparkling Wine
- Wine Reviews
- Wine Tourism
- Wine Trends
- Wine Reference
- Wine Trivia
- Wine Service
- Video
- Winemaking
- Wine-Related Links
- Pinot Noir
- Food Pairing
- Restaurants
- Blogging
- Social Media
- Sonoma Wineries
- Petite Sirah
- Paso Robles wineries
- Sauvignon Blanc
- Wine Business
- Merlot
- Famous Winemaker
- Chardonnay
- Zinfandel
- Syrah
- Interview
- Wine Gadgets
- Livermore Valley Wineries
- Santa Cruz Mountains wineries
- El Dorado County wineries
- urban wineries
- East Bay wineries
- Mendocino County Wineries
- Technology
- iPad
- Santa Lucia Highlands wineries
- Cabernet Franc
- Grenache
- Riesling
Recent Blog Articles
- Dr Vino Delivers Keynote at Petite Sirah Symposium
- It's Riesling Week!
- Solving a Food and Wine Pairing Puzzle at Tadich Grill
- Deals of the Day Template: 50% Off $50 Wine and Merlot for a Penny
- Robert Mondavi Winery’s Garden to Table Experience Offers Fun, Food and Hands-On Culinary Instruction
- Deals of the Day: Four Tempting Deals Including Crazy Pricing for Wente Reliz Creek Pinot Noir
- Spotlight on the Rutherford AVA
- Avoiding Hometown Palate aka Throwing a Dinner Party
- Deal of the Day: Siduri's Moving Sale
- 6 Ways to Re-Use Empty Wine Bottles
- Deals of the Day: Ceja and Eagle Eye
- Deals of the Day: Meadowood and Donati Family
- Top Wines from the 2010 Pinot Days Grand Tasting
- Wine Ratings vs Wine Value
- Protect Your Wine Bottles In-Transit
- Pakistani Police Arrest Wine Smugglers, Seize 26,284 Bottles
- Stainless Steel Wine Glasses for Gourmet Backpackers or the Totally Clumsy
- Free Samples, Blah, Blah, Blog
- 95 Points Are the New 90 in Bordeaux
- A Taste Test of Tiny Trefethen Wine Samplers
Recent Wines of the Day
- 2007 Wente Pinot Noir Reliz Creek Arroyo Seco
- 1986 Ridge Petite Sirah Essence California
- 2006 Robert Mondavi Winery Sauvignon Blanc I Block, To Kalon Vineyard Oakville, Napa Valley
- 2005 Tayerle Troubador
- 2006 Alpen Cellars Pinot Noir Trinity County
- 2008 Blackstone Zinfandel Winemaker’s Select California
- 2008 Olson Ogden Marsanne Margaret’s Mandate Stagecoach Vineyard Napa Valley
- 2000 Far Niente Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley
- 2007 Ravenswood Zinfandel Vintners Blend California
- 2007 Sequana Pinot Noir Sundawg Ridge Vineyard, Green Valley of Russian River Valley
- 2008 Paraiso Pinot Noir Santa Lucia Highlands
- 2007 Ridge Monte Bello
- Wine of the Day: 2008 JUSTIN Cabernet Sauvignon Paso Robles
- Wine of the Day: 2000 Shafer Cabernet Sauvignon Hillside Select Napa Valley
- Wine of the Day: 1996 Corison Cabernet Sauvignon Kronos Vineyard
- 2007 Pinot Noir Woodenhead Buena Tierra Vineyard Russian River Valley
- 2009 Cornerstone Cellars Sauvignon Blanc Napa Valley
- 2005 Swanson Vineyards Merlot Oakville, Napa Valley
- 2008 Franciscan Estate Sauvignon Blanc Napa Valley
- 2008 Sojourn Pinot Noir Sangiacomo Vineyard Sonoma Coast
| Let the Wine 2.0 Enthusiast Beware |
|
|
|
| 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: 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. Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites |








Kevin Glowacki makes this comment
Wednesday, 03 March 2010
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.
Dale Cruse makes this comment
Wednesday, 03 March 2010
Fred Swan makes this comment
Wednesday, 03 March 2010
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?