Unless I had a very vivid dream last night, I recall reading a review of coffee number two by TomC that no longer appears in this thread: Favorite Espressos 2015. I am curious as to why the post was removed? While not journalism in the traditional sense, this forum is a de facto publication. The official bench reviews generally demonstrate concomitant professionalism as well given the pains taken for transparency and disclosure. Tom's review of this coffee was not favorable but was published and publicly disclosed. If it was removed due to some inaccuracy or editorial disagreement, would a separately posted correction or editorial rebuttal not be more appropriate than the outright removal of content?

For my part, I happen to enjoy the coffee that Tom did not. And I also happened to enjoy the fact that his tastes are so divergent from my own. The range of opinions expressed in these reviews often prove as - if not more - informative than content shared by any one individual.

I debated sending my inquiry as a PM or posting in a public thread but chose the latter in case others might have interest in the topic.

Thanks.

For group reviews, our convention is that a majority of reviewers must agree a coffee is worth recommending, otherwise we simply pass on publishing a review. If there are 1 or 2 reviewers who would not recommend a coffee, they can skip that particular review and we'll publish anyway--assuming there is a majority of reviewers who would recommend the coffee.

In this particular case, Tom didn't recommend the coffee and his review comments elaborated on his reasons. I removed his review from the public thread because it wasn't a majority opinion. I'm debating whether this was the right decision, i.e., should reviews reflect only the majority's opinion or should "outliers" be included? Since coffee and taste are such a subjective matter, we've erred on the side of publishing the majority consensus since that should reflect the assessment of what most buyers following the review recommendations will experience.

For my part, I think it is nice to include dissenting viewpoints. If nothing else, it lets members know that a particular recommendation isn't unanimous. Over time, we may have found that our palates and preferences track some reviewers more closely than others, so if that reviewer doesn't like something, it can be very useful information even if it is the minority perspective. And I think there is also some value for newer folks in learning that evaluations are subjective and that even experts can disagree about the qualities of different coffees.

And for what little its worth, I do enjoy Nordic roasts on occasion, and I have greatly enjoyed other coffees from the specific roaster in question, but my one past experience with the particular blend being reviewed was close to what Tom described.

I had seen Tom's review and would prefer that dissenting opinions are preserved. The reviewers are thoughtful in their reviews and I think there is no harm, only benefit, in seeing an alternate opinion.

I think you can trust the members here to draw their own conclusions, particularly as I suspect people will find their individual tastes may match those of a particular reviewer. In such cases, a "not recommended" review could be very valuable.

I also saw Tom's review and agree wholeheartedly with Chris!

I read Toms post before it was deleted and agree with the previous posts. It wasn't overly negative or out of bounds by any means and it definitely contributed to the overall review. I don't think it's inappropriate to publish a negative review even if it's the minority opinion, even the Supreme Court publishes a dissenting opinion.

Dissenting views can be incredibly informative and a great reality check. Imagine buying that coffee expecting nothing but chocolate, nuts, and cream to have a response more like Tom's. Such a dichotomy could prove a real distraction. Water issues? Technique failings? Equipment failure? Must be misaligned burrs again. Having access to that opposing view can help provide context for a difference in perception and reception that otherwise may seem spurious or prove frustrating. There's a wide gap between one dissenting voice and the universal panning of some coffee.

And thank you, Dan (and others), for being receptive to my inquiry. Civility and dialogue on the Internet: who knew?!?

I agree that the tone (respectful, informed, documented) is the right arbiter of whether a post goes/stays on h-b and not its substance (favorable v not on a topic/product). It can be a fine line, and to their credit team h-b (and many other contributors) consistently tread it.