That's not enough ways.
I want to make it easy to stumble across interesting things here. To follow the white rabbit down diverse paths of taste, folklore, genetics.
That's why I created a rating system, from zero to three stars.
My "You May Also Like..." series suggest varieties that may be of interest to those enamored of some popular apples, such as Honeycrisp, McIntosh, and so forth.
My comparisons juxtapose two varieties.
One page links to other websites about apples, and my reviews of same.
Blog posts are sorted into 625 categories (as of this writing). Click on a label at the end of a post to see other posts on that subject.
For instance, nomenclature, or keepers. Or sport (that you grow, not play).
Look over in this blog's sidebar, where I link to recent comments from readers (the best part of this blog).
It's not enough.
The easy stumble
(Not the greatest one, either, as the ratings tend to steer people away from all but my top six.)
By 2012, I had tasted about 120 apples. That's a good deal more reviews than anyone could take pleasure in reading at one sitting.
Today, my count is approaching triple that. My total count of reports here is nearly triple that.
Marketers call web content that does not grow dated or obsolete "evergreen."
Having a lot of this evergreen content is not a bad problem to have, but I continue to struggle to make my reviews and other reports available and easy to find in different ways.
Please excuse this "meta" blog post. (It's more about me than about apples.)
But, any thoughts about my little problem? What else can I do that would be fun and helpful? How to drink from this firehose?
|
| Photo: Israr Ahmrd |
Adam, what an interesting question.
ReplyDeleteWhen I decided to diversify my orchard, the things I thought about were 1) ripening date, 2) keeper/not, 3) color (skin and flesh), 4) use (I know, you only eat apples and don't bake or make cider). I have managed to change from having 30 trees come ripe in 3 weeks to apples that come in from early August to mid-November. (Your buyer's guide captures the ripening date.) Amy Traverso's "The Apple Lover's cookbook" divides apples into four categories for eating and cooking (firm or tender and sweet or tart) but cider makers have other categories (bitter sweet and sharps).
In addition, have you considered a) country/region of origin, b) century named (you do list Decio!), c) "Club" or not (are home growers able to grow it yet), d) privately bred?
Are those enough rabbit holes to consider?
And to be clear: I thoroughly enjoy your blog!
Thank you, Macoun! Some very provocative ideas there.
DeleteI will share with you that I have thought of adding badges to my ratings for (a) culinary and (b) keepers. The culinary apples would have to be at least in part by reputation, as would (c) cider.
But it could be genuinely useful to some.
Thanks!
I like the "You May Also Like..." series, but the concept could, with an almost Herculean effort, be extended. I haven't had a Golden Delicious in years; they're not available in stores I frequent anymore. Right now my favorite grocery store apples are Kanzi, Cripps Pink and Opal (although Opal seems to have recently disappeared from stores, too). I could imagine a multidimensional database that has a similarity score for three different parameters for any apple pairing. In other words, Kanzi and Opal might have a similarity score of 4 for aromatics, 3 for sweetness, and 3 for tartness, for a total similarity of 10. I could then query the database for "what other varieties have an average similarity score of 10 or higher with the three different grocery store apples I prefer?" It would be an interesting problem in databases and linear algebra. You could beef it up by tiebreaker questions-- maybe there is a three-way tie for "best" recommendations, but then I would be asked "have you ever had LucyRose and how much did you like it" and the software would recalculate its recommendations.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this is all very stupid, because what one really wants is to experience apples that are unlike any others and that change one's mind about what a good apple can taste like.
Hi Mike, I probably should build on "You May Also Like" with some more varieties. These draw a good deal of traffic from such searches as "apples like Honeycrisp" etc.
DeleteI think that while you (and I) may appreciate adventure and variety in apples, many are comfortably stuck in invisible ruts, oblivious to the many delicious possibilities.
They have tried all 7 of the standard supermarket varieties and picked their favorites.
My mission is to introduce these folks to a broader universe of opportunities.
How about "rare," "uncommon," "common"
ReplyDeleteI suppose "common" would be the most popular varieties that are sold in supermarkets.
DeleteThough even that is subject to regional preferences: I understand that McIntosh is not "common" on the west coast, though I can buy it at almost any supermarket in April here in Massachusetts.
Here is an idea, which may not be a good idea. Allow your readers to vote on their own ranking of stars for each apple.
ReplyDeleteKeep the Adam stars prominent, but let your audience weigh in and say, “no! Two stars is wrong. I give it a three; it is one of my favorite ever apples“.
I hope that people will do that directly in comments.
DeleteI like this idea, though I think my base of hard-core readers (such as yourself) may be small.
I do get a fair amount of attention but web logs show a lot of one-shot visits, probably from search.
Still I'm curious now about a web service that would keep a running tally of reader ratings.
I would certainly be interested to know more about my readers' tastes!