What makes a better cannabis product review? Is it the information, or is it the entertaining anecdotal comments? You’re in good company if you feel that a great review has to include both. If a review lacks vital information, then it lacks usefulness. However, if it lacks entertainment value, people won’t care to read it. Striking a balance is the key.
What consumers want
Consumers are currently being taught by the makers of the products they buy. They walk into a retailer and learn what that seller wants them to know in order to sell the products the seller carries. Buying and trying is an expensive way to discover which products truly stand out from the rest, and which products are better left to those not seeking Higher Ground. Consumers simply want the truth.
Where we come in
Most consumers don’t have anything fun or special to share about their cannabis experience. Therefore, their review in a standard forum would receive no likes, no play, nothing. However, at HigherGround420.com the review still gets recorded – and the Contributor gets credit for the review. We need every review in order to produce useful data. The most entertaining reviews get featured and win popularity points for some, but it takes a lot of accurately entered reviews to give consumers quality data. We’ve observed that it takes approximately fifteen reviews to obtain a high-quality analysis. That’s why we need every one.
Each Higher Ground product review features a unique product [one harvest/product from one producer/processor] and a list of similar products, previous harvests/reviews of the same product; other brands’ similar products / reviews, analytical data (testing labs named), aggregated review data, featured comments or quotes (linked to Contributor profile), where to obtain this brand/price paid, links to similar product reviews.
It’s never fun to give a poor review. We aren’t here to scold those who are responsibly learning their craft. We are here to show collective scores for the good and bad. This means one bad review won’t hurt – because we won’t publish it and give someone a black eye over one bad review.
However, a brand, grower or crop receiving several poor reviews would create a statistic to be shared with Higher Ground readers. In any case, we will include the most useful information for both the brand and the consumer.
Responsible and objective
Higher Ground may be the only news source providing this level of accountability. The review database is updated each month for public use and contains no identifying information about the contributors who make it possible. Giving credit when credit is due is extremely important to us. Contributors’ public names are only shared when featured or quoted in the pages of the magazine.
To submit a review, go to HigherGround420.com/contribute/ and click the review link. If you prefer to simply subscribe, you have that option as well.
