Most strain reviews on the internet are often of limited use, and it is not because the people writing them are careless. It is because nobody told them which information carries and which does not.
“Super frosty, 10/10, definitely running again” tells the next grower nothing. It is not wrong. It just contains no information that transfers to anyone else’s garden.
This post is a standard and a template. Copy the template, fill it in, post it. If enough members do, this forum’s Strain Reviews section becomes something you can actually make decisions from, which is rarely true of public strain databases.
Legal note: Only post grow reports for cultivation that is legal where you are. In Thailand, cultivation requires the proper licence/notification. If you live somewhere cultivation is illegal, do not post grow reports, and do not post your location or photos that identify you.
Why most reviews do not transfer
The core problem is that a strain review is a report on an experiment, and an experiment without its conditions is not a result.
The difference between a good and a mediocre light setup can change yield by more than the entire quoted range on a seed packet. A cultivar that “yielded terribly” at 500 µmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ under a half-empty canopy has not been tested. It has been mishandled, and reporting the outcome as a property of the seed is a category error.
The same applies to flowering time, which can differ by weeks depending on when you count from and what you call finished (see topic 1362, Harvest Timing). It applies to mould resistance, which depends heavily on your humidity, and to potency, which almost nobody measures.
The fix is not to write more. It is to write the conditions. A short review with the conditions stated beats a long one without them.
The minimum standard
A review that meets this standard is useful. One that does not, mostly is not.
Six things are mandatory:
- Full seed name and breeder: not “Blue Dream,” but the breeder and the exact product name. Different breeders sell different plants under the same name.
- Seed type: regular, feminized, or autoflower. And if you know it: was the pack fixed, or did it segregate?
- Environment: indoor, greenhouse, or outdoor; climate zone and season; country only if cultivation is lawful there.
- Light: type, wattage, and PPFD at canopy if you can measure it. If you cannot measure PPFD, say what the light is and how far above the canopy it sits. This is one of the most important variables in the review.
- Days: from what to what. State your convention: days of vegetative growth, days from flip to harvest, or days from seed for an auto. Reviews are not comparable unless the convention is stated.
- Yield with the method: dry weight, trimmed how, from how many plants, over what canopy area. “600 g” means nothing without the area and the plant count.
Four things are strongly recommended:
- Substrate and container size
- Feed approach and typical EC or PPM, plus target pH
- Temperature and humidity ranges, day and night
- Photos, weekly if possible. Post them only if your cultivation is lawful where you are, and leave out anything that identifies you or your location.
The template
Copy this list into your post and fill it in. Delete nothing. Write “not measured” where you did not measure. “Not measured” is a useful entry. It tells the reader exactly how much weight to put on the surrounding claims, and it is far better than a confident-sounding guess.
STRAIN REVIEW
Genetics
- Breeder:
- Strain name (exactly as sold):
- Seed type: regular / feminized / autoflower
- Reported lineage:
- Pack consistency: uniform / segregating / n=1, cannot say (see topic 1304, Phenotype Hunting)
- Number of plants run:
Environment
- Setup: indoor / greenhouse / outdoor
- Climate zone & season (country only if cultivation is lawful there):
- Canopy area: ___ m2
- Light type & wattage:
- PPFD at canopy: ___ umol/m2/s (or “not measured”)
- Photoperiod: veg ___ h / flower ___ h
- CO2 supplementation: yes / no (ppm if yes)
Medium & feed
- Substrate:
- Container size: ___ L
- Feed line:
- Typical EC/PPM: veg ___ / flower ___
- Target pH:
- Irrigation method:
Climate
- Temperature: day ___ C / night ___ C
- Relative humidity: veg ___ % / flower ___ %
- VPD if tracked:
Timeline
- Convention used: (e.g. “days from flip to chop”)
- Germination to flip: ___ days
- Flip to harvest: ___ days
- Total days from seed: ___ days
- Stretch after flip: ___ x (e.g. 1.8x; see topic 382, Stretch)
- Final height: ___ cm
Training
- Technique(s): none / topping / LST / SCROG / SOG / defoliation
- When applied:
- Would you do it again:
Harvest
- Trichome state at chop: ___ % cloudy / ___ % amber (and how assessed; see topic 1362, Harvest Timing)
- Wet weight: ___ g
- Dry weight (trimmed): ___ g
- Yield per m2: ___ g/m2
- Trim standard: hand / machine; sugar leaf in or out
- Dry method: temp ___ C, RH ___ %, ___ days (see topic 1363, Drying & Curing)
- Cure length before assessment: ___ weeks
Problems (write “no problems observed” if that is the case)
- Pests:
- Disease (esp. Botrytis / powdery mildew):
- Nutrient sensitivity:
- Hermaphroditism: none / some / how much
- Anything else that went wrong:
Post-harvest quality assessment (after cure)
- Appearance:
- Bud density & structure:
- Dry aroma:
- Aroma when broken:
- Defects observed (seeds, mould, foreign matter):
Lab
- Tested: yes / no
- Lab name / COA date / sample type:
- THC %: ___ / CBD %: ___
- Total terpenes %:
- Dominant terpenes:
- (See topic 1318, How to Read a COA)
Verdict
- Difficulty (1-5):
- Would run again: yes / no / why
- Best suited to:
- Not suited to:
Rules for the post-harvest assessment and verdict sections
Assess after a cure, not off the drying line. Two weeks minimum, four is better. Flower changes materially in that window, and a review written on day three is reviewing a different product from the one anyone else will assess.
Describe the product, not the high. Do not describe intoxication or promote recreational use; describe the product, not the high. Appearance, structure, aroma and defects are what transfer to the next grower.
Describe, do not rate. “Sharp citrus aroma with a diesel note underneath when broken” is information. “9/10 aroma” is not. Numbers on subjective properties feel precise and carry nothing.
Say what went wrong. A review with no problems listed is usually incomplete; say “no problems observed” explicitly if that is the case. The problems are the most valuable part of the post, because they are what the next grower needs to plan for.
State your sample size. Reviewing one plant is fine and it is common. Say so: “n=1, so this may be a phenotype rather than the cultivar.” That one clause raises the credibility of everything else you wrote.
Distinguish observation from inference. “Yielded poorly” is an inference. “412 g dry from 1.2 m² under 480 W at unmeasured PPFD, canopy about 70% filled at flip” is an observation, and it lets the reader draw a better inference than you can.
What not to include
Effects described in medical terms. “Great for anxiety,” “cured my back pain.” This crosses from observation into a medical claim, and under Thai rules it also crosses into prohibited advertising territory. Leave effects out of the review entirely.
Anything that reads as an offer to sell. Under the Notification of the Ministry of Public Health Re: Controlled Herbs (Cannabis), B.E. 2568, advertising controlled cannabis flower is prohibited and online sale is prohibited. A grow report is not an advertisement. A grow report becomes one when it includes a price, contact details, a purchase link, the name of the shop or dispensary where flower was bought, or an offer to trade flower or clones. None of these belong in a review. Give the breeder and strain name only.
Comparisons to other growers’ results. Comparing yield figures across growers is of limited value unless every condition matches. Compare cultivars against each other within your own grow. That comparison is valid, and it is the most useful one you can make.
For readers of reviews
The standard cuts both ways.
Weight a review by how much of the template it fills in. A review that reports PPFD, plant count and canopy area is worth more than several that do not.
Look for n. A single plant is a phenotype.
Read the problems section first. It is where the real information is.
Discount unmeasured potency claims entirely. Nobody can estimate THC percentage by looking. Treat a THC figure that has no lab name and COA date as unmeasured.
Ask. If a review is missing something you need, post the question. Most growers will answer, and the thread becomes better than the original post.
Why this is worth the effort
Seed catalogues usually describe plants under conditions they do not disclose. Commercial strain databases aggregate uncontrolled user reports. Neither can tell you how a cultivar will behave in a greenhouse in Chiang Mai in August.
This forum can, but only if the reports are written in a form that transfers. Fifteen minutes filling in a template at the end of a fourteen-week grow is a small cost for making that grow useful to everyone who comes after you.
Post the template. Post the failures. Post the numbers you did not measure as “not measured.”