# compiling roasters and beans resource - opinions greatly appreciated



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Hello, beautiful coffee lovers,

I had a quick chat with Glenn who encouraged me to make a post.

I am trying to create a resource that seeks coffee beans by our lovely roasters and presents them in the most useful way. Naturally, I want to make it as useful as I can, so I'd very very much appreciate your help by telling me what would you like to see on there, what would make it useful for you, if at all. I have a very early draft ready, and thought I'd open it up for you guys, before I go too far down the wrong path:

http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee

It's just one page for now. I've put together some basic ideas of what I'd like to see, first of all, when checking out what's new roasting out there. I also took into account a few thoughts expressed on the pages of this forum. The roasters that are on the website already were chosen randomly, I have no affiliation or special relationship with them. My aim is to put as many roasters as I can and present them in a helpful way.

There's lots to do, for example filtering and sorting by flavour, origin, roaster and so on. There's also things to do I've not thought of yet. In any case, would be grateful for your constructive criticism and feature requests.


----------



## BaggaZee (Jun 19, 2015)

I can see this being useful. First I'd like to see the filtering you've mentioned, by roaster, bean, region, tasting notes, light/medium/dark etc. etc.

Reviews for each would also be good to see...


----------



## Elcee (Feb 16, 2017)

An additional filter you could add is roast profile so roasted for espresso, filter or omni.


----------



## RDC8 (Dec 6, 2016)

This is a great idea. In my opinion, keep it simple. I think the real power will be in the filtering so that people can find exactly what they are looking for. Linking back to the roaster's website then allows people to make their own decisions. Best of luck with the project.


----------



## Hairy_Hogg (Jul 23, 2015)

My memory may be failing me.... but did @Phobic not do this?


----------



## gwing (Jul 17, 2017)

Elcee said:


> An additional filter you could add is roast profile so roasted for espresso, filter or omni.


Or green.


----------



## 4515 (Jan 30, 2013)

Hairy_Hogg said:


> My memory may be failing me.... but did @Phobic not do this?


I was racking my brains as to who did something similar and I think it was Phobic


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Thanks for your responses so far, encouragement, ideas and information of a prior art. Will try to reply quoting individual posts later on today.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Hairy_Hogg said:


> My memory may be failing me.... but did @Phobic not do this?


I'd like to find out what happened to that project.


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

yes thanks for the mention @Hairy_Hogg I did something similar, not as pretty though, i was more data orientated, stopped doing it due to lack of interest.

biggest issue is there are a lot of site out there selling coffee, you need to data scrape a lot of sites, each 1 is different, and can change format.....

filters are key to making the info usable though.

and there's no standard for describing the beans so even when you do put filters in you often find the output isn't all that clean.

can't remember what I called the post, do a search for scrapping or data, something like that. There should be links to some google docs info with regex expressions for some of the top roasters.

feel free to steel whatever's there and reuse it.

I'd suggest keeping to the bigger sites though - my plan was to automate something for the bigger bean sellers.

I contacted most of the big roasters, none of them were interested in providing a data feed (which would have made life much easier)

good luck!


----------



## Jez H (Apr 4, 2015)

Discount codes would be helpful. Some run continually for forum members, others are "flash" sales. But to have them all in one place would be good.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

BaggaZee said:


> I can see this being useful. First I'd like to see the filtering you've mentioned, by roaster, bean, region, tasting notes, light/medium/dark etc. etc.
> 
> Reviews for each would also be good to see...


Thanks very much. Yes, filtering is high on to-do priority list. As to reviews it's more complicated, perhaps I could link to reviews made on the forum. will have to talk to mods when I cross that bridge.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Elcee said:


> An additional filter you could add is roast profile so roasted for espresso, filter or omni.


Thanks, this is somewhat new, I may have to pick your brains about that. How is roast level/darkness (1st crack, 2d crack) related to machine type? did you mind the grind coarseness?


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Thanks very much for the comprehensive answer @Phobic !



Phobic said:


> ... i was more data orientated, stopped doing it due to lack of interest...


I am into data too, but kids these days like pretty tiles and things that swoosh







it's hard to keep it clear and informative. So who lost the interest, you or visitors?



Phobic said:


> ...biggest issue is there are a lot of site out there selling coffee, you need to data scrape a lot of sites, each 1 is different, and can change format.....


Yes, you're right. I am aware of the challenges though. The current information on http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee is generated by fully automated scraping code, and is monitoring 8 roasters, some of which have already changed the format. Also this is not my first scraping project. It's tough and annoying, I appreciate the pain, but still want to do it











Phobic said:


> ... There should be links to some google docs info with regex expressions for some of the top roasters.
> 
> feel free to steel whatever's there and reuse it.


Very kind, much appreciate it. I am fairly new to the forum, still crawling through posts, I will be looking for those.



Phobic said:


> ...
> 
> good luck!


Thanks


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

gwing said:


> Or green.


already doing it







, some of the coffees listed are green. just need filtering now.


----------



## Rakesh (Jun 3, 2017)

Instead of reviews, how about a simple thumbs up thumbs down system, maybe a little comments section for people to post their short reviews or reveal their best recipes. This is of course if you allow people to become a member of the site, they could make wish lists to save coffees they want to try later. Like a social networking site for coffee lovers (minus most of the social part).


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Jez H said:


> Discount codes would be helpful. Some run continually for forum members, others are "flash" sales. But to have them all in one place would be good.


Not thought of this, it's an interesting idea. Thanks Jez H. Where these codes come from, how are they discovered? This needs more thinking, perhaps talking to mods? definitely worth looking into, thanks


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Rakesh said:


> Instead of reviews, how about a simple thumbs up thumbs down system, maybe a little comments section for people to post their short reviews or reveal their best recipes. This is of course if you allow people to become a member of the site, they could make wish lists to save coffees they want to try later. Like a social networking site for coffee lovers (minus most of the social part).


I don't see any benefit, nor incentive for roasters to get on board with this. You'll always get people who fail to make a decent cup from decent beans, Recipes are rarely bean specific, grind settings (beyond the roaster's remit) are.

Reviews of individual lots will be so transient as to be always out of date.

@Beanedict how often does the site update?


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Rakesh said:


> Instead of reviews, how about a simple thumbs up thumbs down system, maybe a little comments section for people to post their short reviews or reveal their best recipes. This is of course if you allow people to become a member of the site, they could make wish lists to save coffees they want to try later. Like a social networking site for coffee lovers (minus most of the social part).


Thanks for multiple suggestions. To be honest, reviews and comments and personalisation beyond certain point, scares me a little







There are so many things to take into account, for example to ensure that system is not abused. also it makes it more labour intensive. I think these features ave valid, many sites have them. Perhaps I need to learn more about that side of business, although it's scary. Managing people's opinions is a bit too much responsibility for me at this point







do you have much experience in that







? I would not say no to any help or advice


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

MWJB said:


> I don't see any benefit, nor incentive for roasters to get on board with this. You'll always get people who fail to make a decent cup from decent beans, Recipes are rarely bean specific, grind settings (beyond the roaster's remit) are.
> 
> Reviews of individual lots will be so transient as to be always out of date.
> 
> @Beanedict how often does the site update?


A dialog, a difference of opinion, I like that







That's what I need for success - a discussion. Thanks @MWJB. With respect to comments and likes, there must be a sweet spot somewhere between what @Rakesh was saying and your argument. Some product comments will lose their currency very soon. One of the small roasters I chatted to makes a different batch every fortnight. His business is a single batch at a time, then it's gone. A single product that disappears in 2 weeks. On the other hand, news sites deal with this kind of information all the time, and this is what makes them attractive. This is what might make the site attractive to smaller roasters too, and to the buyers who want fresh information. Lots to think ...

Speaking of fresh, my site is an automated web app and currently can update information as frequently as I want without my intervention, e.g. every 30 seconds. Currently I am not doing that, since it's still early stages. Do you think I should? I'd probably not run it more than once a day at this point.

If any form of comments or social input is not that beneficial, in your opinion, what would be the most value add to the current state of the site? filtering? additional immediate information about products in the list (currently I display, roast type, flavour notes, roaster, and price(price information is done badly according to some))? I plan to have a detailed information about each product once you click, but I have a limited website estate available for immediate information.

thanks again for sharing your thoughts


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Constructive feedback for my you. Personally as a taste descriptor smooth means Nothing to me, leaves me with an impression of blandness or lack of imagination ... The notes I see on the site are from roasters? Once I flick through and see that more than a couple of times I switch off.

Seems espresso based at cursory glance or am I wrong?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Beanedict said:


> If any form of comments or social input is not that beneficial, in your opinion, what would be the most value add to the current state of the site? filtering? additional immediate information about products in the list (currently I display, roast type, flavour notes, roaster, and price(price information is done badly according to some))? I plan to have a detailed information about each product once you click, but I have a limited website estate available for immediate information.
> 
> thanks again for sharing your thoughts


Well, I can only go by my own way of going about choosing a bean. Filtering & regular (daily) updates would be what I'm looking for, perhaps something along the lines of:

Green

Roasted

Espresso

Filter

Washed

Natural

Honey/pulped natural

Berry

Stone fruit

Tropical fruit

Citrus fruit

Dried fruit

White sugar

Brown sugar

Honey

Caramel (inc. toffee, treacle, molasses).

Floral

Herb

Cereal

Spice

Earthy

Tea

Nut

Milk chocolate

Dark chocolate

White chocolate

I want a quick & intuitive way to get to what I want, without having to scroll through pages of origin, estate names (though obviously some will want to search by these criteria) & indefinable terms like 'medium, smooth, rich'.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Mrboots2u said:


> Constructive feedback for my you. Personally as a taste descriptor smooth means Nothing to me, leaves me with an impression of blandness or lack of imagination ... The notes I see on the site are from roasters? Once I flick through and see that more than a couple of times I switch off.
> 
> Seems espresso based at cursory glance or am I wrong?


To be fair it depends on who you are aiming then app at and it probably isnt me.


----------



## 7493 (May 29, 2014)

I'd love to play with something like this. Price is an important factor too. If I was setting up a filter for my own preferences it would contain something like: Dark, chocolate, tobacco, molasses under, £20/kilo. I wish you the best of luck with this enterprise.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Mrboots2u said:


> Constructive feedback for my you. Personally as a taste descriptor smooth means Nothing to me, leaves me with an impression of blandness or lack of imagination ... The notes I see on the site are from roasters? Once I flick through and see that more than a couple of times I switch off.
> 
> Seems espresso based at cursory glance or am I wrong?


Hi and thanks for the feedback, @Mrboots2u. What you see on http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee is just a start. I'd like to know which direction to move from there so that I don't end up with hours spent on something that makes people switch off







and never return, hence my post.

The flavour notes (wherever available) are from the roaster's websites as they describe the beans. This is what I've done as a start, the question is how do I change it for better. What do you like to see in the section flavour/notes? How you'd have the taste described? When I see smooth, for example, I understand it as opposite from acidic or sour (citrus), i.e. sweet or nutty/cocoa.

I am not sure what you mean by espresso based (granted, I am not a barista), the beans listed on the site are of various roast levels, from light to extra dark. There are some green ones too. I just picked a few roasters as an example, hope to add many more. Please let me know about your preferred the flavour descriptor, terms from the wheel perhaps?


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

MWJB said:


> Well, I can only go by my own way of going about choosing a bean. Filtering & regular (daily) updates would be what I'm looking for, perhaps something along the lines of:
> 
> Green
> 
> ...


Thanks again @MWJB, this is all very helpful. I too would like to find things I want quickly, without faffing about. So filtering is definitely high on my priority list. From your post I could see the flavour notes from the taste wheel, what was unclear to me is what you mean by Green/Roasted and Espresso/Filter (I was enjoying coffee alone, not developed common vocabulary) - do you mean how dark is the roast for the first, and how coarse is the ground for the second?

p.s. Liked your blog posts


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Beanedict said:


> Thanks again @MWJB, this is all very helpful. I too would like to find things I want quickly, without faffing about. So filtering is definitely high on my priority list. From your post I could see the flavour notes from the taste wheel, what was unclear to me is what you mean by Green/Roasted and Espresso/Filter (I was enjoying coffee alone, not developed common vocabulary) - do you mean how dark is the roast for the first, and how coarse is the ground for the second?
> 
> p.s. Liked your blog posts


Thanks. 

By green/roasted I mean whether the roaster sells those beans roasted, or whether they also sell them unroasted for people to roast at home (green & unable to be brewed until they are roasted). Some of the beans already showing on your site are listed as "green".

Espresso/filter - A lot of roasters will roast differently for brewing as espresso, compared to how they may roast for drip filter brewing.

I hadn't considered whether the coffee would be available as pre-ground/whole bean, but sure, that probably ought to be a filter too.

Smooth etc. - all coffee is technically acidic, interesting (to me) coffee has some perceived acidity, nobody should be aiming for sour, acidic brews/roasts - this is usually a malfunction in the brewing process & maybe beyond the roaster's control. I'd expect any well roasted coffee to be balanced & harmonious when brewed properly, it's supposed to be smooth if smooth means no, one, unpleasantly dominating aspect?


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Rob666 said:


> I'd love to play with something like this. Price is an important factor too. If I was setting up a filter for my own preferences it would contain something like: Dark, chocolate, tobacco, molasses under, £20/kilo. I wish you the best of luck with this enterprise.


Thank you @Rob666, I'll try to accommodate your filtering preferences







Do you have favourite roasters? I'll try to include them too. What did you mean by liking to play with something like this?


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

MWJB said:


> Espresso/filter - A lot of roasters will roast differently for brewing as espresso, compared to how they may roast for drip filter brewing.


Can you tell me what's the difference? is it just temperature and timing? how is it normally noted by roasters? roast type? I've not noticed any specific terminology for this from roasters, except darkness of the roast, and occasional espresso word in the name of the product.



MWJB said:


> Smooth etc. - all coffee is technically acidic, interesting (to me) coffee has some perceived acidity, nobody should be aiming for sour, acidic brews/roasts - this is usually a malfunction in the brewing process & maybe beyond the roaster's control. I'd expect any well roasted coffee to be balanced & harmonious when brewed properly, it's supposed to be smooth if smooth means no, one, unpleasantly dominating aspect?


Yes, that's what I meant - acidic as in unbalanced toward more sharp and citrusy. And smooth - is more of a bitter-sweet taste, like a good quality 85% cocoa dark chocolate kind of taste. A barista on youtube described the phenomenon of various acids in a coffee balancing out to create a sensation of sweet. I guess he meant various lipids in a roasted coffee bean, long and short chain molecules, creating a nice soup that hits the taste buds in a wonderful way, when extracted right.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Beanedict said:


> Can you tell me what's the difference? is it just temperature and timing? how is it normally noted by roasters? roast type? I've not noticed any specific terminology for this from roasters, except darkness of the roast, and occasional espresso word in the name of the product.
> 
> Yes, that's what I meant - acidic as in unbalanced toward more sharp and citrusy. And smooth - is more of a bitter-sweet taste, like a good quality 85% cocoa dark chocolate kind of taste. A barista on youtube described the phenomenon of various acids in a coffee balancing out to create a sensation of sweet. I guess he meant various lipids in a roasted coffee bean, long and short chain molecules, creating a nice soup that hits the taste buds in a wonderful way, when extracted right.


Yes, some beans will be described by the roaster as "Espresso", others as "Filter"... others may not have either specifically mentioned & might be assumed to be suitable for either. Beans for espresso may be roasted a little darker to tame acidity that can be challenging in such a concentrated drink.

No, he meant acids, rather than lipids. The lipids & other non dissolved particles contribute to mouthfeel, not so much flavour & can even detract from sweetness.


----------



## 7493 (May 29, 2014)

Beanedict said:


> Thank you @Rob666, I'll try to accommodate your filtering preferences
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi Beanedict, favourite roasters include Coffee Compass, Hilltop Brews, Atkinson's, James Gourmet and Rave.

The play thing was just saying I would like to use the application if you complete it.


----------



## jlarkin (Apr 26, 2015)

I think this is an interesting idea.

At the moment it's a bit hard to compare prices as well. Each roaster may have a different amount as the "starting weight" (200g, 227g or 250 and for instance Square Mile do 350g - I think). So seeing the price is tricky to judge without either a weight or "amount per" value. I personally like that in supermarkets where you see it's £5 (50p per 100g) or whatever as that gives you a kind of standard for comparison.


----------



## Step21 (Oct 2, 2014)

There is also the problem with variable postage rates. Some roasters charge none for say a 250g bag, some charge £3.50 and can have a large impact on overall cost. It would be useful to know the costs and at what value free postage kicks in (as many do) for those buying larger quantities.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Filtering by roast type is added!

It's not in the prettiest filter yet, but it works - floating button in bottom right corner. Currently you cannot select/deselect all, so you just have to unselect beans of unwanted roast type.

p.s. thanks very much for more feedback and ideas, will try to reply soon.


----------



## gwing (Jul 17, 2017)

Beanedict said:


> Filtering by roast type is added!
> 
> It's not in the prettiest filter yet, but it works - floating button in bottom right corner. Currently you cannot select/deselect all, so you just have to unselect beans of unwanted roast type.
> 
> p.s. thanks very much for more feedback and ideas, will try to reply soon.


Great - I just tested this for 'green' and it (mostly) worked well although as you say some sort of 'deselect all' is needed to save unticking all the boxes.

You might want to look at the filter conditions, the 'green' selection seemed to work as expected but as well as the greens also brought up 'Nyarusiza Kamegeli'. I suspect this might be because your extended information page associated with this coffee contains the word 'green' amongst the text.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

MWJB said:


> ...Beans for espresso may be roasted a little darker to tame acidity that can be challenging in such a concentrated drink.
> 
> No, he meant acids, rather than lipids. ...


Thanks for the detail. yet another thing to consider for my site.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Rob666 said:


> ...The play thing was just saying I would like to use the application *if* you complete it.


Thanks for the vote of confidence















"if" indeed









The algorithm and the back end side is not a problem, but making the front end of the website useable and capturing how people want to access the data is bit trickier, as evident by my new filtering button (I'll make it better, I promise).


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

jlarkin said:


> I think this is an interesting idea.
> 
> At the moment it's a bit hard to compare prices as well. Each roaster may have a different amount as the "starting weight" (200g, 227g or 250 and for instance Square Mile do 350g - I think). So seeing the price is tricky to judge without either a weight or "amount per" value. I personally like that in supermarkets where you see it's £5 (50p per 100g) or whatever as that gives you a kind of standard for comparison.


Thanks for the encouragement. The pricing thing is exactly the kind of thing what I need a help with. You see, I already provide this information, but obviously provide it badly. And I know that, the project is in its infancy. What I don't know is what is better







- Currently the actual price for the smallest amount of beans that roaster sells is on the right hand side of the card (bottom) that describes a coffee product, e.g. £ 9.25 (for 200g) the roaster sells beans in 200g bags at £9.25. The roster may also have 500g and 1kg bags, but I am not showing this information at present. On the left hand side and bigger font size, is a representative price, £ 11.56 i.e. how much the beans would cost if it was 250g bag. This representative price is calculated for all beans listed as if they are all 250g. So the price on the left gives the viewer a comparable measurement, which coffee is more expensive. Obviously, am not doing it right and this is something for me to figure out. The supermarket idea is reversed - you see the actual price, then, in smaller font you see a representative price (usually per 100g). I thought 100g means nothing to people (except that it's a round number), whereas 250g is more relatable to coffee buyers. In any case, the price on the left is there to compare, the price on the right is the actual thing, until I find a better way of representing this and other information.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Step21 said:


> There is also the problem with variable postage rates. Some roasters charge none for say a 250g bag, some charge £3.50 and can have a large impact on overall cost. It would be useful to know the costs and at what value free postage kicks in (as many do) for those buying larger quantities.


Thanks, I agree. This information would be really useful. This postage comparison is coming. I have two problems









1) time - I am not full time on this project and have limited time resource to spend. there are also other things that shout, do me first, like more rosters and more complete filtering.

2) space - I can see no way of presenting all the information on the product card. Most of information will have to go to the product specific page (future) navigable by clicking on the card (currently it takes you directly to the roaster web page with the product), unless I personalise the listing. I do need to understand what information deserves to be on the page with listings, and what will have to be moved to product specific page. Perhaps a FREE POSTAGE label in the corner would be a good start?


----------



## Step21 (Oct 2, 2014)

Beanedict said:


> Thanks, I agree. This information would be really useful. This postage comparison is coming. I have two problems
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It would certainly be good to have this on your future planned product specific page.

It could also be argued that it should be incorporated as part of the price per gram or whatever? Most 250g bag orders will incur postage and add to the advertised cost so that the real cost delivered per gram is higher. Bulk orders may be free and thus have a cheaper cost per gram. Which makes comparison tricky.

A bugbear with many roasters sites is that they do not specify postage costs up front (they may have a "free postage on orders over x" amount displayed) but for smaller orders it is often only at checkout stage where they appear at which point much time has been wasted if you then cancel the transaction. Having this info on a product specific page could very useful.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Update: added beans from *Rave*, added results filtering by *decaf*, added *select/deselect all. *

Thanks for continuing to post your thoughts. Will reply shortly to posts that I've not replied yet.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

gwing said:


> Great - I just tested this for 'green' and it (mostly) worked well although as you say some sort of 'deselect all' is needed to save unticking all the boxes.
> 
> You might want to look at the filter conditions, the 'green' selection seemed to work as expected but as well as the greens also brought up 'Nyarusiza Kamegeli'. I suspect this might be because your extended information page associated with this coffee contains the word 'green' amongst the text.


Thanks for letting me know, @gwing. I cannot reproduce this glitch with Nyarusiza Kamegeli, electing 'green' in filter, only brings the green beans. I also added select all, and decaf option.


----------



## jimbocz (Jun 5, 2015)

I'm interested in how you are solving the ultimate problem that Phobic ran into: getting the information from the roasters into a database.

If the answer involves screen scraping the info from various websites, you should seriously reconsider spending more time on this.


----------



## gwing (Jul 17, 2017)

Beanedict said:


> Thanks for letting me know, @gwing. I cannot reproduce this glitch with Nyarusiza Kamegeli, electing 'green' in filter, only brings the green beans. I also added select all, and decaf option.


Agreed, itried a couple of browsers here today and cannot now reproduce it either. Your new select/deselect all feature makes it much easier to select a single item (such as greens) as well.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

jimbocz said:


> I'm interested in how you are solving the ultimate problem that Phobic ran into: getting the information from the roasters into a database.
> 
> If the answer involves screen scraping the info from various websites, you should seriously reconsider spending more time on this.


Hi @jimbocz, I use a combination of techniques currently, including scraping and the use of structured data, some very basic ML, and was planning to add more complex ML techniques in far future.

I would be very much interested if you could elaborate your concerns over data scraping, to the point of abandoning the project. My experience from my previous project, http://callrate.co.uk, tells me that it is possible to write a fully autonomous system that handles changes in data, within limits. It is my experience that the limits, within which my code functions well, have seldom been breached by 80 data sources used in my callrate project. As such, I am very optimistic about the use of the tools and techniques for my coffee project. I am sure I'll have challenges, I have already hit a few, but this is what makes the whole journey interesting. My bigger problem is on the other end, how to make the data I process more valuable for coffee lovers.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Question, as I land on that link now , it this how the first page of a final version will look ?

I'll be honest , for me , if this becomes bunged up with every online roaster , tom , dick and commodity roaster than I would just turn away from it .

But.....then you if you are gonna make it open to everyone then thats what will happen.

Ultimately there can't be a filter for that .


----------



## Step21 (Oct 2, 2014)

Can't see the point of the filters "dried" and "extra light"? I've never seen any roasters advertising these.

A useful filter (if it can be done) would be to produce a list of roasters and perhaps be able to filter out the ones you don't want.

Other useful filters would be origin (eg. Africa, Asia, Central America etc..) by then by country (Ethiopia, Rwanda etc...) and process (washed, natural etc...). This would allow a search for say washed Ethiopians. Otherwise, there will too many results to make sense of.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Step21 said:


> Can't see the point of the filters "dried" and "extra light"? I've never seen any roasters advertising these.
> 
> A useful filter (if it can be done) would be to produce a list of roasters and perhaps be able to filter out the ones you don't want.
> 
> Other useful filters would be origin (eg. Africa, Asia, Central America etc..) by then by country (Ethiopia, Rwanda etc...) and process (washed, natural etc...). This would allow a search for say washed Ethiopians. Otherwise, there will too many results to make sense of.


Indeed, the roast descriptors will be largely meaningless to anyone but roasters. Espresso, filter, or all should cover it.

Why no flavour notes?


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Thanks guys. I like the criticism, I need to destroy or test my original perceptions. I also need to step up with my knowledge of the coffee domain. Bare in mind that the site as is now is very early stage and I do not know what is the best way to present information, hence the cry for feedback and real requests about what would be important and convenient for you. Everything you see know is going to be rewritten. I am currently concentrating on type and semantics of information - what makes more sense to the bean seeker. I can slice and analyse the information in a multifarious dimensions, but only the handful of slices will be used by 95% of people,- I am searching for that.

You ask, why this or why that. It is what it is because I have more questions than answers at present









@MWJB, why no flavours? because I've not done them yet. I think slicing information by flavour is going to be the most valuable thing. I have ideas on how to do it, but I tend to get carried away with too complex constructs. My plan is to normalise the information given by roasters, who are bit too creative with notes description, into a flavour wheel terminology by SCAA, unless you guys know better way to represent the flavour in a standard and methodical way. So yes, flavours are coming - better description and filtering.

more answers to follow. thanks again!


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Mrboots2u said:


> Question, as I land on that link now , it this how the first page of a final version will look ?


No. I just got a free css theme from the web and thrown in a few more things. Real work is currently happening on the back end that generates html that you see. I'm not even sure that cards is the best way to represent the information, I know most roasters use cards on their websites, but I guess they just payed someone to build it and someone just tweaked an existing theme with little though to UX/UI and how buyers interact with the webpage. The final website is very likely to look different. I was hoping to ascertain the best look, feel and data representation from this forum and likeminded people. After all, I am writing this with people like you in mind, as well as for myself.



Mrboots2u said:


> I'll be honest , for me , if this becomes bunged up with every online roaster , tom , dick and commodity roaster than I would just turn away from it .
> 
> But.....then you if you are gonna make it open to everyone then thats what will happen.


I guess this is the hard part







how to give people what they want in the fullest way but without the noise. Perhaps I need to ask how people decide which roasters they chose to respect? Based on what criteria? And once they have their comfortable circle of roasters, how do they step over the horizon and explore new things? hmm...

Hey @Mrboots2u, how do you decide which roasters deserve your attention? By the way, what are they? the list







and once you're happy with them, how do you decide which new roasters or beans to try? find your flavour and sample all new beans that match your palate signature?



Mrboots2u said:


> Ultimately there can't be a filter for that .


Personalisation? I seldom seen it done right, however, even by the big players. I'd like to stay away from it initially.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

@Beanedict ill drop you pm another day to answer the questions posed.


----------



## jimbocz (Jun 5, 2015)

Beanedict said:


> Hi @jimbocz, I use a combination of techniques currently, including scraping and the use of structured data, some very basic ML, and was planning to add more complex ML techniques in far future.
> 
> I would be very much interested if you could elaborate your concerns over data scraping, to the point of abandoning the project. My experience from my previous project, http://callrate.co.uk, tells me that it is possible to write a fully autonomous system that handles changes in data, within limits. It is my experience that the limits, within which my code functions well, have seldom been breached by 80 data sources used in my callrate project. As such, I am very optimistic about the use of the tools and techniques for my coffee project. I am sure I'll have challenges, I have already hit a few, but this is what makes the whole journey interesting. My bigger problem is on the other end, how to make the data I process more valuable for coffee lovers.


If you've already developed a system that scrapes 80 different sources for data then I don't have to tell you about the limitations of screen scraping. If you think you can deal with that in a way that makes commercial sense then I really do wish you luck and I am not being sarcastic.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

jimbocz said:


> If you've already developed a system that scrapes 80 different sources for data then I don't have to tell you about the limitations of screen scraping. If you think you can deal with that in a way that makes commercial sense then I really do wish you luck and I am not being sarcastic.


Thank you for the wishes @jimbocz, and I too was not trying to be arrogant or otherwise cocky. Perhaps we have slightly different definitions of scraping. It "ain't no piece of cake", but it's not that bad. As to weather it makes commercial sense, I am not sure







this is a hobby, was not thinking about monetisation, yet. It is lots of work initially, tweaking scraping/data mining/other algorithms, but once you've dealt with the edge cases that pop up within the first month, then you hardly need to look at the code again.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Update: added beans from *Origin.*

*
*Future work: more roasters, more filtering, slight website beautification.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Update: added beans from roaster *Hasbean*.

Future work: more roasters, filtering by flavour.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Update: added *filtering* of beans by *Flavour Notes* (it is not perfect yet and does not contain all the categories from the SCA flavour wheel yet, but it does an OK job - it will improve - the algorithm interprets roaster notes to the wheel categories, and orders by the best match, e.g. if product has two notes then it shows beans that match both notes, then lists beans that match one of them, and filters out the beans that do not match any of the notes. It needs more teaching though.)

Future work: more roasters, improve filtering by flavour


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Update:

1. Improved *filtering* by *Flavour Notes* (SCA terms) - added *third* subcategory of notes, and increased algorithm's vocabulary.

2. Added *Foundry Coffee Roasters* to the site (12 roasters now)


----------



## BeansForBreakfast (Sep 17, 2017)

I attempted to have a gander at your project, but the page loading completely froze my browser & stole my mouse pointer, seemed to be stalling on a shopify script. When I can afford to lose another 40mins I'll try again, admittedly I did have quite a lot of resource intensive tabs open.

There's too much info loading on the opening page, will overwhelm users (& browsers!), better to start with no cards and filter selections. That way, the canvas is blank until users select their preferences, at which point, data that interests them is presented, also makes for faster loading.

For more manageable browsing, I would suggest tabs or hover menus, to select various broader categories - as suggested by other users countries, varietals, processing, roasts, brew type, etc, etc.

To present information in small spaces - make use of icons (a legend can be anchored, always on screen, expanding when hovered) to convey info re postage, packet sizes, price and utilise tooltips to provide more detail.

I'm curious what database you're using for the backend? An are you mining data for each product, wouldn't it be simpler to create a bean database and just update roaster/supplier/price variations, as many roasters sell, essentially the same beans (there is a lot of common data), albeit they have there own unique way of finishing the product or different suppliers. But it would reduce the variables, having a static bean-base, especially as beans are seasonal, they'll likely be back again next year (and same data dug up again & again...). Then you could also make available, data about beans/origins/flavours (for educational purpose) even if there are none immediately for sale, users can plan future purchases based on taste preference.

Sometimes a more useful way to get UX feedback, is to present users with several formats (i.e. 3-4 different layouts for product data), then ask which they preferred and why. This way you can amalgamate the more commonly liked ideas, and don't get bogged down tailoring to individual requests.

Hope this is helpfull. As I said I didn't really venture too deep into what you have thus far, before being frozen out, so I may be suggesting things you have already done, if so, my apologies. When I get a chance, I'll close all other tabs and try again! It's a shame that @Phobic and you didn't join forces, I was following his project with interest as well.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

@BeansForBreakfast,

I agree with much of what you said and thank you for those suggestions. Some of your assumptions are incorrect though. I'll try to answer them later on, for now, this link containes prefiltered selection of only 8 beans and should load reasonably quickly, chocolate decaf medium roast:

http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee?decaf=decaf-only&roast=|MEDIUM_LIGHT|UNKNOWN|DARK|MEDIUM|MEDIUM_DARK|&flavour=|DARK_CHOCOLATE|CHOCOLATE|


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

BeansForBreakfast said:


> ... Hope this is helpfull. As I said I didn't really venture too deep into what you have thus far, before being frozen out, so I may be suggesting things you have already done, if so, my apologies. When I get a chance, I'll close all other tabs and try again! It's a shame that @Phobic and you didn't join forces, I was following his project with interest as well.


Yes, very helpful. Thank you. Just to treasure you, the slowness and froze-ness is solely due to the fact that client's (your) browser makes too many requests to images directly from roasters (mainly from shopify urls). So if you start with tightly filtered request like this link:

http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee?decaf=decaf-only&roast=|MEDIUM_LIGHT|UNKNOWN|DARK|MEDIUM|MEDIUM_DARK|&flavour=|DARK_CHOCOLATE|CHOCOLATE|

the loading will be much quicker and will not freeze the browser. But I am going to change this, among other things. It was on the list, but perhaps I need to get it sorted before doing anything else. I think I'll have to resize the images and store them locally for faster response, or replace them with something informative.

I agree that it's a shame that . I and @Phobic don't join forces. There may be opportunities in the future. I found this forum after he stopped working on his project.

Most of the points you raise are very valid and on my todo list in one shape or another, but it was good to get a confirmation from you that my thinking is on the right track. Will try to reply later to the rest of your comments. thanks again.


----------



## BeansForBreakfast (Sep 17, 2017)

Thanks I'll look tomorrow. I work in web dev, so maybe able to help with site presentation. One of the most irritating things, when creating websites, is catering for the multitude of hardware/software combinations and capabilities, you always have to aim to be at least average speed on the slowest machine. In addition you have to account for (especially with a site like this) mobile users, and large quantities of photos auto loading will eat up their data limit. Studies have shown that if it takes longer than half a second to load people don't bother waiting and find another page.

Storing images locally adds more maintenance work and requires valuable space, and in all honesty I'm not certain they add any value to the data, whilst also taking up page space. Not sure I have a better suggestion though. Maybe roaster logos, but that might get repetitive.

I still think you're better off keeping the opening page minimal, a short 'what this site is about' or 'how to use filters' or 'meanings of icons', but allow users a 'click here to browse all beans' and 'click here to filter beans' buttons, like a gateway/foyer to the real site. Or load the 20 most popular with a 'show more' button at the bottom, similar to search engines.

There are ways to defer loading so that data is requested as it's needed. HTML5 and CSS now provide a wealth of interaction animations, allowing fading, sizing, menu/tab use, scrolling with just the hover of a mouse, making it all seamless.

None of what I've said is meant as criticism, only as suggestions based on experience. Please don't feel that you have to explain yourself either, it's your project you can do it any way you want! The downside to asking for opinions on personal projects, one feels instinctively protective & defensive. It's admirable that you're investing personal time in this.

I will have another try tomorrow with filtered link, then I can provide feedback on actual usage, not just speculation!


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

@BeansForBreakfast, all valid points and are in the pipeline, which is clogging at the moment











BeansForBreakfast said:


> ...None of what I've said is meant as criticism, only as suggestions based on experience. Please don't feel that you have to explain yourself either, it's your project you can do it any way you want! The downside to asking for opinions on personal projects, one feels instinctively protective & defensive. It's admirable that you're investing personal time in this.
> 
> I will have another try tomorrow with filtered link, then I can provide feedback on actual usage, not just speculation!


No probs, criticism can be converted into improvement, as long as it is constructive







Yes it's personal project but I draw pleasure from making it useful to as many people as possible, so opinions are important to me. It's better if they come from real pain, real situation, of course, but still any idea has a brainstorming features that may trigger other ideas. If I was defensive, I did not mean to be. The website is nowhere near in shape that I want it to be.

I switched off the images as a default state (can be switched on in the filter section), and added a few links to the main page, but no styling. I agree with gateway/foyer principle - you have to present information in manageable size.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Update: created a table/grid view, much faster load and probably more usable

http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-grid-view


----------



## BeansForBreakfast (Sep 17, 2017)

Haven't forgotten about this, I've had a complete computer meltdown, long story, but using ancient backup laptop,everything is slow on this (even the forum). As soon as I have my pc rebuilt, I'll have a look.


----------



## 9719 (Mar 29, 2015)

Thank you for removing all those pictures, pretty as they were, I am living in the slow lane when it comes to broadband, hate hearing people moaning on about only! getting 50Mbps download, poor old them, they wanna try living with a whole 1Mbps, if and only if the wind is in the right direction, yer that's right 1Mbps down and zilch up. Can barely stream youtube etc, def no hd stuff so have to squint to unfuzz anything we are lucky enough to get, well I suppose that'll teach us for living right out in the sticks, and whilst im on one, what's this 3g everyone's moved on from, its rumored there's something called 4g, umm one day never I suspect like the b.band, all promises and no action.

Rant over....

Also thank you for the work your putting into this, I notice its getting updated regularly, I have it booked marked and pop by often to check on progress and enjoy the additions being made.


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

it's looking very good, plenty of work gone in!

couple of things I spotted

- typo on peanuts in the flavour selector.

- some check boxes have different colours, it looks a little odd, not sure if it's meant to represent something or if it just contrasts the colouring

- I don't think you're parsing the varietals correctly, you're picking up the full name, varietal, farm and country, might be an idea to do a check against a know list of Varietals to pull out that way

couple of other suggestions

- I think you need to be able to filter on country, varietal as well, would make it much more useful

- Add in hieght grown, something that people look like to help select

- the list is quite long, you could do an options to remove the graphics and make it a bit more condensed, would help readabiliy

great work!


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Thanks for encouragement @mines_abeer,

good to see that the site becomes more useful. Much more work on the list, but don't hesitate to tell me about your wishes or pain, or additions that you would like to see.



mines_abeer said:


> ... they wanna try living with a whole 1Mbps...


I know how you feel, as I too live with 1MBps speed, and I sit on top of 100GB fibre cables, not in the middle of nowhere, alas crappy ADSL is the only option. Good that I have other sources during the day.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Thanks @Phobic,



Phobic said:


> - typo on peanuts in the flavour selector.
> 
> - some check boxes have different colours, it looks a little odd, not sure if it's meant to represent something or if it just contrasts the colouring
> 
> - I don't think you're parsing the varietals correctly, you're picking up the full name, varietal, farm and country, might be an idea to do a check against a know list of Varietals to pull out that way


- typo corrected, thanks

- black colour of text and checkboxes because they are nearly impossible to see on those backgrounds, when in white. Not sure how else to do it.

- not finished varietals yet, just used the word as placeholder, removed for now to avoid confusion. I plan to put varietals and other info too. the problem is not much space on the page with the list, might create product specific pages (with additional info) and link to them first rather than the original product pages directly.



Phobic said:


> - I think you need to be able to filter on country, varietal as well, would make it much more useful
> 
> - Add in hieght grown, something that people look like to help select
> 
> - the list is quite long, you could do an options to remove the graphics and make it a bit more condensed, would help readabiliy


- thanks for the suggestion, will add it to the list. Which one would you say is more important to add first?

- the problem is the space per row, if I cram all the possible info it might make it less readable. I'll play with different options.

- which graphics do you mean? roaster logo and the background colour of the roast level? I suppose I could add a checkbox "simple form" to turn it into much simpler table view.

Thanks again your thoughts, much appreciate it.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

BeansForBreakfast said:


> Haven't forgotten about this, I've had a complete computer meltdown, long story, but using ancient backup laptop,everything is slow on this (even the forum). As soon as I have my pc rebuilt, I'll have a look.


Thanks, good luck with your PC.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Update: added several new roasters. Now comparing 17 Roasters: Coffee Compass, Perky Blenders, Square Mile, Workshop, Django, Foundry, Hasbean, Origin, Rave, among others.

Future Work:

1. Varietals. Already built a semantic tree of varieties and cultivars, now trying to figure out how to map roaster's information to actual variety, some roasters do not use actual variety names :/

2. More roasters

3. Review all suggestions again and revaluate priorities.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Update:

1. Added new roasters. Now comparing 22 Roasters. New roasters since last update: Alchemy, North Star, James Gourmet, Smokey Barn, Crankhouse.

2. Extracting and showing bean type/variety for some of the roasters (more todo)

Future Work:

1. Varietals. Extract varietal info from remaining roasters. Add search by bean variety

2. More roasters

Ref: http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-grid-view - fast load list view, http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee - fast load tile view (no images)

p.s. don't forget to play with "Advanced" button







where you can filter by roast and flavour and opt to show images.


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

this is looking really good now, lots of work gone into it!

would be useful if you could sort the list as well, by price/roaster/country.

I also found myself instantly looking for the height grown as away to make an initial evaluation/comparison of the beans, would be very useful to add that into the main list.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Phobic said:


> this is looking really good now, lots of work gone into it!
> 
> would be useful if you could sort the list as well, by price/roaster/country.
> 
> I also found myself instantly looking for the height grown as away to make an initial evaluation/comparison of the beans, would be very useful to add that into the main list.


I know, I'd love to do that. Currently, I have no ordering what so ever, unless you select specific flavours, then I list them by mostly matched flavours first, then kindred flavours, then cut off the rest of the bean results. I may have to do something like this for variety, country, elevation. I also was thinking about providing filtering by user's favourite roasters, so that they can only see what they want to see. so much to do









As with variety, the altitude is not always present on the roaster website. I started matching variety with farm names and geographic areas, but this is more of a guess work, not the actual information, probably better to concentrate on more important information.


----------



## MildredM (Feb 13, 2017)

Took me a few minutes to find this again! It may be useful for some recent joiners









I have found it really useful - thanks for all the work you put into it @Beanedict

The link is on the first page and here it is again:

http://coffeediff.co.uk/


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Thanks @MildredM









I was going to post an update soon, once I added another roaster and fixed a data collection from *Rave*, who seemed to have fallen off the predicted pattern







- time to teach my algorithm a few more new tricks







As you can see, I've added *process* information and *variety*, whenever I could. The plan is to add search by process and variety, and not just flavour notes and roast level. But also I am thinking how can I make the navigation more user friendly, before I even start looking at making the site prettier.

I am glad you found it useful. If you have any suggestions as to how you would like to use it or what are you looking for, just let me know. I did not ignore all the suggestions that have been voiced so far, just going through them slowly ...


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

used this site last week when picking my latest batch of beans, found it very useful as I knew just what I was after.

really great resource!


----------



## MildredM (Feb 13, 2017)

I found the advanced filter really helpful. It also helps to be reminded how many fantastic roasters we have here in the UK. So many beans, so little time (to fit all those cups of coffee in)!


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Thanks very much @Phobic and @MildredM

It's so nice to hear that people find it useful. There's so much I want to do on it... Once I add few more roasters (almost fixed Rave) I'd like to make advanced filter more user friendly, and the rest of the site more friendly.

But knowing me, I'll probably do filtering by *variety* first (coz it's not as boring as pretty squares and buttons







), it will be like the taste notes filtering, where sub-varieties will be included in varieties,- so if you're looking for *Catuai* variety you'd see those beans first, then you'd see *Caturra* and *Mundo Novo* variety, then you'd see all *Red Bourbon* and *Sumatra* beans, then Bourbon and Typica, and so on, Yemen and the rest of Arabica beans. Something like that. Although I am not sure yet if genetic relation resembles taste relationship between different varietals.

Also, I noticed that different roasters may use the same (or very similar) green beans - I wonder if grouping by those could be useful, so that if you like Yirgacheffe, then you can see all of them in one block. So much to do







... But perhaps I should go back to the start of the thread and deal with suggestions/requests first!


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Update:

1. Added new roasters. Now comparing *27 roasters* (~600 beans). New roasters since last update: Horsham, Atkinsons, Adams & Russel, Steampunk, Clumsy Goat

2. Extracting and showing bean *variety* for all of the roasters where possible

3. Extracting and showing *process* method for all of the roasters where possible

Future Work:

1. add filter by process

2. add filter by varietals.

3. More roasters

4. Some ordering

Ref: http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-grid-view - fast load list view, http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee - fast load tile view (but no images)

Links through to the roaster's pages are by clicking on Coffee name, at the moment.

p.s. don't forget to play with "*Advanced*" button







where you can filter by decaf, roast and flavour and opt-in to show images.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Update:

1. Added filtering by *process*. The feature is in *Advanced* filter, along with the rest of them

The filtering by process works in combination with other filters.

When using it, bare in mind that, at present, if you choose processing specific to decaf (i.e. CO2) and also chose no decaf beans, the result will return no beans. Also, if you don't want to miss out on beans which processing is unclear (could not be ascertained), then be sure to select unknown process as well as natural, if you're looking for natural process beans.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

*Acknowledgements + Roadmap report.*

Before I disappear into the festive madness, I would like to thank a few people who encouraged me to continue this project and shared their ideas and constructive criticism, in no particular order (well, mostly chronological order):

@Glenn @BaggaZee @Elcee @RDC8 @Hairy_Hogg @gwing @working dog @Phobic @Jez H @Rakesh @MWJB @Mrboots2u @Rob666 @jlarkin @Step21 @jimbocz @BeansForBreakfast @mines_abeer @MildredM

Some helped bit more, others bit less, for all of which I am grateful. But *particular thanks* goes to @Phobic









I tried to systematise your suggestions in a list (with numbers how many times each was mentioned), to give me/us some idea on how to prioritise future work:



Filter by roaster (4)


Filter by bean variety (3)


Filter by region (4)


Filter by taste notes (6)


Filter by roast level (5)


Simplified roast level (4) espresso/filter/omni/all


Filter by process (2)


Filter By altitude (2)


Filter By price (2)


Search by weight, Normalised weight (4)


Postage price/information (2)


Linking to roaster website (2)


Discount codes, deals, sales (2)


Scoring (stars, thumbs up, reviews) (2)


Extended product specific page (1)


Mobile app/like view (1)


Personalised profiles (limited/selected/prefered roasters, etc) (2)


Roast date (2)


The list above is there to show that I did not ignore your thoughts, but also that you have a chance to review and shout for particular feature to be implemented first. I am concentrating on the listing and filtering, but I realise that navigation (clear main page with shortcuts/quick links) and overall look/feel needs improving. but I still believe that the quicker the site becomes useful to people the better it is (what's the point in pretty looks, but none of the features that are currently implemented and functioning, such as filter by taste notes, filter by process, filter by roast, decaf)

Thanks again for giving a little bit of your time to me. I hope i can return the favour in the future.


----------



## 9719 (Mar 29, 2015)

'Thanks again for giving a little bit of your time to me. I hope I can return the favour in the future.'

You already have, such a wonderful resource, easy to use, practical and only to be improved by your persistence with the project. It is us who owe you a huge debt of gratitude so thanks, your a star.

Enjoy a festive break


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

I think it's us who should be thanking you!

you've created a great resource here.


----------



## MildredM (Feb 13, 2017)

I think it's a great! I have come here many, many times over the weeks and love seeing how you've developed it. I sort of wonder if it shouldn't be a sticky - maybe the board should have a guest sticky with ever changing threads that are really worth checking out!

Anyway, thanks again







and Happy Christmas to you


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Hi, just wanted to publish a quick update and to say that I am back. I did not abandon the project. I was on a long holiday, surrounded by busy time on each side, so not had a chance to work on the project. However it is resumed now, all the TODO points are waiting for me, joy 









*Update:*

1. Added new roasters. Now comparing 
*31 roasters*
(~600 beans). New roasters since last update: Pharmacie, Amber, Decadent Decaf.

2. You only see products from 30 roasters, because Cambridge Coffee Company has nothing to sell since Christmas.

3. Removed Christmas blend section, as it is no longer current 









4. Number of beans in the list fluctuates (540-630), because the connection to some roasters, e.g. Hasbean, is misbehaving, so algorithm does not always extract all of the beans from those roasters.

Ref: 
http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-grid-view - fast load list view, 
http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee - fast load tile view (but no images, can switch on via advanced button)

Links through to the roaster's pages are by clicking on Coffee name, at the moment.

p.s. don't forget to play with "
*Advanced*
" button 







where you can filter by decaf, roast, process and flavour and opt-in to show images.

p.p.s. thanks again for all the support and encouragement that I was given.


----------



## Elcee (Feb 16, 2017)

Its really cool to see how this has developed. One thing I'd like is the ability to see a master list of roasters and to filter by roaster too.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

So had a look at this list , where is the light and dark info being taken from ?

For example you have

https://shop.squaremilecoffee.com/products/cajamarca

Its a Peruvian espresso with notes of Orange Cranberry and Toffee, I can see nothing on the AQM page eluding to roast profile, yet it is in the Medium Dark profile.

You have a Coffee Compass bean as Dark and some Has Bean stuff as Dark. I wonder how comparable these two definitions are being roasters ?


----------



## les24preludes (Dec 30, 2017)

Good project - very worthwhile. Right now I think there's too much dead space on the website - you don't need all the coloured squares and you have to do far too much scrolling to get at the basic essential information. I'd prefer the actual name of the seller rather than their logo, which is confusing. I'd also like to see the origin of the beans more clearly stated.

Have a look at some of the other websites. I prefer coffee reviews by a long way, the information is clearer and much easier to navigate. Much more information in the same amount of space. No unnecessary artwork taking up space.

http://www.coffeereview.com/types/espresso/


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Mrboots2u said:


> So had a look at this list , where is the light and dark info being taken from ?
> 
> For example you have
> 
> ...


Hi @Mrboots2u, so the roast level may have some error margin in it. Say, Medium Dark, could be Dark (But not Medium Light or Light). I'm not doing any scientific comparison of the beans, but go on the basis of any information that roasters provide and I can find. In cthe ase of Square Mile, they only indicate if the roast filter (I mark it as Medium Light) or espresso (I mark it as Medium Dark), this conclusion can be derived from two bits of information, the text (anything marked as not espresso in the name or description is filter roast) or it can be derived from css classes of the html page (i.e. if the coffee bean is filter roasted then the dom element that encapsulates the product has an attribute class="filter"). I am using the latter to determine if it's espresso or filter roast. However, I accept that Medium Dark might actually be Dark. I would love to be more precise with this but, at present, I don't know how. Therefore, I thought that some indication of roast level is better than none.

Similarly, Coffee Compass has 3 states of roast level, extractable from the web pages: medium, strong, extra dark - which I map to Medium, Dark and Extra Dark respectively. However, I accept that strong can be anything between Medium and Extra Dark, i.e. it can be either Medium Dark or Dark. Based on similar roast levels from Coffee Compass, some of which I tried, and information on this forum about Mahogany roast specifically, I went with Dark instead of Medium Dark, but I accept that CC's Dark may well be closer to SM's Medium Dark. So, there's consistency within the roaster, but slight error margin between the roasters. Other roasters have 5 states, sometimes noted as stars/beans (1,2,3,4,5) sometimes as words, so I tried my best to match themacross all the roasters.

I'd love to normalise the roast levels between all roasters, but I do not know currently how to do it, except getting the beans from all of the roasters and comparing them against some accepted palete. If you know of a good way to make it so, I'd love to hear it


----------



## MildredM (Feb 13, 2017)

It's a tough one this. Had I seen the SqMile was med/dark I wouldn't have looked at buying the beans. I hadn't thought about how you were basing the info actually.

Maybe it it would be better to not indicate roast level unless it is clear on the roasters website. But what do I know!


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Beanedict said:


> Hi @Mrboots2u, so the roast level may have some error margin in it. Say, Medium Dark, could be Dark (But not Medium Light or Light). I'm not doing any scientific comparison of the beans, but go on the basis of any information that roasters provide and I can find. In cthe ase of Square Mile, they only indicate if the roast filter (I mark it as Medium Light) or espresso (I mark it as Medium Dark), this conclusion can be derived from two bits of information, the text (anything marked as not espresso in the name or description is filter roast) or it can be derived from css classes of the html page (i.e. if the coffee bean is filter roasted then the dom element that encapsulates the product has an attribute class="filter"). I am using the latter to determine if it's espresso or filter roast. However, I accept that Medium Dark might actually be Dark. I would love to be more precise with this but, at present, I don't know how. Therefore, I thought that some indication of roast level is better than none.
> 
> Similarly, Coffee Compass has 3 states of roast level, extractable from the web pages: medium, strong, extra dark - which I map to Medium, Dark and Extra Dark respectively. However, I accept that strong can be anything between Medium and Extra Dark, i.e. it can be either Medium Dark or Dark. Based on similar roast levels from Coffee Compass, some of which I tried, and information on this forum about Mahogany roast specifically, I went with Dark instead of Medium Dark, but I accept that CC's Dark may well be closer to SM's Medium Dark. So, there's consistency within the roaster, but slight error margin between the roasters. Other roasters have 5 states, sometimes noted as stars/beans (1,2,3,4,5) sometimes as words, so I tried my best to match themacross all the roasters.
> 
> I'd love to normalise the roast levels between all roasters, but I do not know currently how to do it, except getting the beans from all of the roasters and comparing them against some accepted palete. If you know of a good way to make it so, I'd love to hear it


Hi this is why putting a roast level on it when it when you have no real data to go on isn't terribly helpful.

If the roaster calls it such then please use it but otherwise your Basing it on a arbitrary category you think " espresso" falls into.

I used to buy based on taste notes not an arbitrary description of the colour of roast. I have since realised that I am out on my own here a bit though.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

MildredM said:


> It's a tough one this. Had I seen the SqMile was med/dark I wouldn't have looked at buying the beans. I hadn't thought about how you were basing the info actually.
> 
> Maybe it it would be better to not indicate roast level unless it is clear on the roasters website. But what do I know!


This....


----------



## DogandHat (Aug 28, 2017)

For us, roast level is the most frustrating thing that can go on packaging because it is so subjective - basically you also have to have knowledge of the roaster to be able to accurately interpret their scale.

In the subs we've included 'Medium' roasts that to us were Dark, 'Dark' roasts that were Medium, and 'Medium' roasts that were Light (no lights that were dark or darks that were light though)... and I'm sure in each case the roasters would tell us that we're wrong in our interpretation - everyone might as well say 'Medium Roast' and argue their interpretation


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Elcee said:


> Its really cool to see how this has developed. One thing I'd like is the ability to see a master list of roasters and to filter by roaster too.


Thanks for your comment @Elcee, will try to accomodate


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

@Mrboots2u, @MildredM, @DogandHat

This is very useful info, thanks very much! Why didn't you shout earlier







I really want to make this resource worth visiting, rather than making people frustrated with misleading data.

*Roast level* was one of the first things I started gathering as I developed the code. As I added more roasters, I tried to keep this category populated to the best of my abilities. I am little bit more knowledgeable now, but still have many gaps. Having struggled with the roast level, as I carried on, I was reluctant to remove this category altogether. Perhaps I should have?

So you'd rather Roast Level be removed completely (because it is not useful at all), or have it less prominent and present as a rough guide, since it may have limited usefulness?

The problem is, as has been pointed out, you can have two bags from two different roasters saying that the beans are, say, Medium Dark, yet they clearly look very different to the eye. If this information is not useful at all, then why do roasters offer it?

When I filter by roast level on the website, I usually select roast levels on each side of my desired one. When I see what I like, in the filtered list, I click through the link (coffee title) to the actual product and read more. So, to me it had some limited usefulness.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

@DogandHat, I had a naive notion that roasters use Roast Level category more wisely, and that I can normalise this information across roasters, i.e. as it is on the website


----------



## Elcee (Feb 16, 2017)

Beanedict said:


> @Mrboots2u, @MildredM, @DogandHat
> 
> This is very useful info, thanks very much! Why didn't you shout earlier
> 
> ...


To me the main issue seems to be trying to classify the roast level of beans when it's not stated by the roaster and the risk of classifying it incorrectly.

Secondly, it's much easier to compare the roast level of beans within a given roaster's range then across roasters because it's more likely that the same standard of classification is applied in the former than the later.

I think it's okay to present roast info if the roaster states it as you're just quoting product info.

I think being able to filter by notes, intended brew style (omni, filter or espresso), origin/blend and process would be powerful enough for someone to curate a selection.

Anecdotally I only ever use roast colour as a red flag of something to avoid e.g. super dark because that style is just not what I'm into.

Anyway all in all great work so far.


----------



## johnealey (May 19, 2014)

As a roaster, roast level based on outer bean colour



or brew type
​
can be hugely misleading. I have a tonino roast meter that provides an objective measure of a roast but even the developers of it acknowledge there may be subtle differences between other tonino devices (although they have done their best to narrow this down), when you get to Agtron tiles and much more complex colour meters then calibration of light source / ambient light / eyes of observer (in case of tiles) becomes much more critical.

I guess what am trying to add is that unless the roaster states the roast level you may be adding in something that comes back to bite you later, even if the roaster states it, unless you aware of what they measured on it still could be light compared to medium or described as city or city +

I measure all own roasted beans and any of the LSOL sub / other roasters beans and from experience, without grinding the bean the external colour can be a poor indicator. It is only once ground you get a true indication and even then the caveats above apply ( broad taste notes are a better indicator i.e. citrus / chocolate etc )

Hope of help and keep up the good work

John


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Re roast , I would remove it as a filter for choice but keep it as a descriptor where the roaster themselves has indicated it ( Coffee Compass for example ).

It works both way as people may not buy SQM if listed as Dark or medium Dark but those people buying a Has Bean dark bean thinking it will be comparable to a coffee compass one are I suspect going to be disappointed too.


----------



## kennyboy993 (Jan 23, 2017)

This is a great resource - bravo for building this. It's very useful to me.

Please don't remove roast level - a valuable indicator to me...... I don't care that much if it's not 100% reliable. The worst that can happen is a buy something that isn't the roast level I expected - I've learnt.

Not a big enough problem to warrant removing the valuable property as a selection characteristic In my view - personal view of course.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

It looks like most or the majority of the roast level info on there though is based on a judgement and not having seen or tasted the bean or used the roaster so its just arbitrary ? For it to be useful or anyway meaningful as a filter of choice the roaster or the owner of the info needs to passed at least some judgement on it based on use etc.


----------



## kennyboy993 (Jan 23, 2017)

Mrboots2u said:


> It looks like most or the majority of the roast level info on there though is based on a judgement and not having seen or tasted the bean or used the roaster so its just arbitrary ? For it to be useful or anyway meaningful as a filter of choice the roaster or the owner of the info needs to passed at least some judgement on it based on use etc.


Can't argue with this logic - though I've not taken from this thread that the classifications are not without some sort of insight eg what the roaster quotes?

OP mentions early on that some of the classifications are direct from roaster?


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

kennyboy993 said:


> Can't argue with this logic - though I've not taken from this thread that the classifications are not without some sort of insight eg what the roaster quotes?
> 
> OP mentions early on that some of the classifications are direct from roaster?


Yeah coffee compass for one , see post 95 for the rest .


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

les24preludes said:


> Good project - very worthwhile. Right now I think there's too much dead space on the website - you don't need all the coloured squares and you have to do far too much scrolling to get at the basic essential information. I'd prefer the actual name of the seller rather than their logo, which is confusing. I'd also like to see the origin of the beans more clearly stated.
> 
> Have a look at some of the other websites. I prefer coffee reviews by a long way, the information is clearer and much easier to navigate. Much more information in the same amount of space. No unnecessary artwork taking up space.
> 
> http://www.coffeereview.com/types/espresso/


Hi, thanks for suggestions, but I guess I don't quite understand some of your comments. Were you looking at: http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-grid-view?all

if you compare coffee review and my coffee diff pages it is not obvious which one has more useful information available from the start. For example, I have taste notes, variety and process right there in the list, whereas they only have a snipped of description. My page fits more beans above the fold, compared to them (see two pics below). As to the names, if you hover on logo it reveals the roaster name, but I see what you mean.

coffee review:









coffee diff:


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

kennyboy993 said:


> Can't argue with this logic - though I've not taken from this thread that the classifications are not without some sort of insight eg what the roaster quotes?
> 
> OP mentions early on that some of the classifications are direct from roaster?





Mrboots2u said:


> Yeah coffee compass for one , see post 95 for the rest .


To clarify the etimology of *roast level *on my website:

I never put an arbitrary Roast Level next to the bean if the roaster has no information at all, hence *Unknown* roast for many beans on the website. Just word espresso is not enough for me to mark the coffee bean Dark roast. In case of Square Mile, another hint word was filter describing other (non-espresso) beans - hence the approximation (perhaps too crude). Of course, when the roaster says Medium Dark - I state Medium Dark on my website, many roasters state that. Other roasters mark the beans as strengh:1,2,3,4,5 - I map them to the existing vocabulary on my website, to the best of my ability, some roasters explain what they mean by 1,2,3,4,5 but the mapping of numbers to words is pretty reasonable, in my opinion.

It was my belief that this information would useful as a guide. Also, I was working based on people's (much earlier) comments on this forum, and roast level was something that they found useful. There are many other useful bits of info that I plan to include in the future, but the roast level seemed like relatively easy to include, little did I know than...


----------



## kennyboy993 (Jan 23, 2017)

To me, this is useful Beanedict - thanks for your efforts on the site, is great


----------



## Elcee (Feb 16, 2017)

Beanedict said:


> To clarify the etimology of *roast level *on my website:
> 
> I never put an arbitrary Roast Level next to the bean if the roaster has no information at all, hence *Unknown* roast for many beans on the website. Just word espresso is not enough for me to mark the coffee bean Dark roast. In case of Square Mile, another hint word was filter describing other (non-espresso) beans - hence the approximation (perhaps too crude). Of course, when the roaster says Medium Dark - I state Medium Dark on my website, many roasters state that. Other roasters mark the beans as strengh:1,2,3,4,5 - I map them to the existing vocabulary on my website, to the best of my ability, some roasters explain what they mean by 1,2,3,4,5 but the mapping of numbers to words is pretty reasonable, in my opinion.
> 
> It was my belief that this information would useful as a guide. Also, I was working based on people's (much earlier) comments on this forum, and roast level was something that they found useful. There are many other useful bits of info that I plan to include in the future, but the roast level seemed like relatively easy to include, little did I know than...


To me the devil is in the detail. I think that if the roaster provides a roast level then that can be useful information and I would like to see that. I think the problem is trying to standardise it across different roasters and applying the filter because of the inconsistent descriptions and standards roasters would use. I'd have filters for categories that are easily standardised like flavours notes, processing method, intended brew method, origin etc. and put roast colour in the description box.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Beanedict said:


> To clarify the etimology of *roast level *on my website:
> 
> I never put an arbitrary Roast Level next to the bean if the roaster has no information at all, hence *Unknown* roast for many beans on the website. Just word espresso is not enough for me to mark the coffee bean Dark roast. In case of Square Mile, another hint word was filter describing other (non-espresso) beans - hence the approximation (perhaps too crude). Of course, when the roaster says Medium Dark - I state Medium Dark on my website, many roasters state that. Other roasters mark the beans as strengh:1,2,3,4,5 - I map them to the existing vocabulary on my website, to the best of my ability, some roasters explain what they mean by 1,2,3,4,5 but the mapping of numbers to words is pretty reasonable, in my opinion.
> 
> It was my belief that this information would useful as a guide. Also, I was working based on people's (much earlier) comments on this forum, and roast level was something that they found useful. There are many other useful bits of info that I plan to include in the future, but the roast level seemed like relatively easy to include, little did I know than...


I am confused then, what process are you using to grade the SQM espresso beans roast level? The fact they they roast for filter and espresso ? Or that you have ordered from them and done some kind of eyeball comparison ?


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Mrboots2u said:


> I am confused then, what process are you using to grade the SQM espresso beans roast level? The fact they they roast for filter and espresso ? Or that you have ordered from them and done some kind of eyeball comparison ?


No eyeball comparison for SQM. just based on roaster's indication that it is roasted for filter or espresso. If this is way out, I'd love to be corrected. Perhaps in addition to roast level, it's worth adding espresso/filter tag when information exists on roaster website?


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Beanedict said:


> No eyeball comparison for SQM. just based on roaster's indication that it is roasted for filter or espresso. If this is way out, I'd love to be corrected. Perhaps in addition to roast level, it's worth adding espresso/filter tag when information exists on roaster website?


Yeah its way out. Just because someone take a coffee as for espresso doesnt mean it will have been taken to the arbitrary description of medium dark.

Same with Has Bean and second crack roasting references. Stick these side by side with a coffee compass mahogany and you have two very different roasts.

I dont mean to be pedantic but just guessing at this because it says espresso is for want of a better word Arbitrary.

Ultimately I am not your core market as I do not order beans using an site like this, so please take my advice with a huge pinch of salt.


----------



## ashcroc (Oct 28, 2016)

Beanedict said:


> No eyeball comparison for SQM. just based on roaster's indication that it is roasted for filter or espresso. If this is way out, I'd love to be corrected. Perhaps in addition to roast level, it's worth adding espresso/filter tag when information exists on roaster website?


I'd be inclined to include only info that's provided by the roasters. While an espresso roast is usually darker than a filter roast, there is no way of telling how much further they have gone (or where they stopped originally) without them saying.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

ashcroc said:


> I'd be inclined to include only info that's provided by the roasters. While an espresso roast is usually darker than a filter roast, there is no way of telling how much further they have gone (or where they stopped originally) without them saying.


Some espresso roasts will be lighter than someones elses filter roasts


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Mrboots2u said:


> Ultimately I am not your core market as I do not order beans using an site like this, so please take my advice with a huge pinch of salt.


I appreciate your input anyway. Will correct this for all the relevant roasters. By the way you can't order coffee via my website, I just compare/list the beans and provide the link to the original roaster, it's an information resource, no money changes hands.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Beanedict said:


> I appreciate your input anyway. Will correct this for all the relevant roasters. By the way you can't order coffee via my website, I just compare/list the beans and provide the link to the original roaster, it's an information resource, no money changes hands.


I worded that incorrectly, I meant i do not use comparative sites like this to research roasters.

Re Roast I would guess some people into a darker roast i will filter their choices by notes and tastes ( subconsciously at least ) , to dark chocolate, tobacco, earthy, strong etc.


----------



## kennyboy993 (Jan 23, 2017)

Mrboots2u said:


> I worded that incorrectly, I meant i do not use comparative sites like this to research roasters.
> 
> Re Roast I would guess some people into a darker roast i will filter their choices by notes and tastes ( subconsciously at least ) , to dark chocolate, tobacco, earthy, strong etc.


Maybe not tobacco


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

kennyboy993 said:


> Maybe not tobacco


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Elcee said:


> ... I think being able to filter by notes, intended brew style (omni, filter or espresso), origin/blend and process would be powerful enough for someone to curate a selection ...


Thanks for your thoughts, @Elcee. Filtering by notes and process is already there. filtering by origin, varietals is on the list. However, *taste notes* is another can of worms, worse than *roast level*, since roasters use their own words, not from the flavour wheel, e.g. Scottish shortbread, 5 Alive, kit kat, curly wurly, nettle, lychee, ferrero rocher, creme brulee, to name but few.



johnealey said:


> ...I have a tonino roast meter that provides an objective measure of a roast but even the developers of it acknowledge there may be subtle differences ... I guess what am trying to add is that unless the roaster states the roast level you may be adding in something that comes back to bite you ... broad taste notes are a better indicator ... Hope of help and keep up the good work. John


Thanks John, yes it helped. Thanks for words of worning







not prepared to buy tonino roast meter just yet







I'm going to review all my data gathering and be less 'clever' with the roast level, perhaps with some explanation to use it as guide only, etc.



Mrboots2u said:


> ... It works both way as people may not buy SQM if listed as Dark or medium Dark but those people buying a Has Bean dark bean thinking it will be comparable to a coffee compass one are I suspect going to be disappointed too.


Thanks again @Mrboots2u, I see the predicament now. Normalising the roast level across roasters would be great, but as is, I can't claim that one is the same as the other, hence limited or negative usefulness.



kennyboy993 said:


> ... It's very useful to me. Please don't remove roast level - a valuable indicator to me...... I don't care that much if it's not 100% reliable. The worst that can happen is a buy something that isn't the roast level I expected - I've learnt. Not a big enough problem to warrant removing the valuable property as a selection characteristic...


Thanks for the encouragement, @kennyboy993. I feel that I should write some warning, like handle with care







regarding the roast level, at least. I think roast level as is, together with taste notes is useful as a combo.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Mrboots2u said:


> ... Just because someone take a coffee as for espresso doesnt mean it will have been taken to the arbitrary description of medium dark.
> 
> ... I do not order beans using an site like this, so please take my advice with a huge pinch of salt.


Will do







with a pinch of salt







but it's useful for me to know, as I learn more about it all, so thanks very much. I thought that if roaster reccomends it as espresso than it's normally roasted darker (at least darker than Medium), but I see the error of my ways now, the trick for me is how to keep the information about roast level and make it more useful. Perhaps roast level + intended bew style together as it was given by the roaster, if available.



ashcroc said:


> I'd be inclined to include only info that's provided by the roasters. While an espresso roast is usually darker than a filter roast, there is no way of telling how much further they have gone (or where they stopped originally) without them saying.


That's what usually is shown in the list. If no indication of roast level, I leave it blank (Unknown), it's just for some of the roasters i tried to fit the info they provide into the roast levels. Will be changing that for those roasters.



les24preludes said:


> Good project - very worthwhile. Right now I think there's too much dead space on the website - you don't need all the coloured squares and you have to do far too much scrolling to get at the basic essential information. ...


Thanks for suggestions, I'd appreciate if you could elaborate more, if you have spare time, some time. also see my post #104. Thanks.



MildredM said:


> It's a tough one this. Had I seen the SqMile was med/dark I wouldn't have looked at buying the beans. I hadn't thought about how you were basing the info actually. Maybe it it would be better to not indicate roast level unless it is clear on the roasters website. But what do I know!


Sorry, I had best intentions, this will be changed.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Hi, just a quick update, since the last activity on this thread, addressing some of the latest points that people raised:

*Update:*

1. Walked through all the existing roasters and removed Guesstimate Roast Level, if roaster does not say it explicitly. I hope I did not miss any.

2. Added new roasters. Now comparing *37 roasters* (~700 beans). New roasters since last update: *Quarter Horse*, *Strangers*, *F & E Coffee*, *Crude*, *47 Degrees*, *Craft House Coffee*

3. You only see products from 36 roasters, because Cambridge Coffee Company still has nothing to sell.

4. Added *List of Roasters* with some *statistics* for each, check it out







: http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-roasters

5. Added *Filter by Roaster(s)* in *Advanced* Settings. Now you can only list coffee beans from the roasters you want to see, in addition to other filter categories

6. Improved resiliance of algorithm to changes, and fixed data gathering for some of the roasters that changed their website or moved to a different e-commerce, etc.

*To Do:*

1. I started to gather alternative information about the roast where available, i.e. espresso, filter, omni - once finished, it will show up on the page along with or instead of Roast Level.

2. Add more roasters









Ref: http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-grid-view

http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-grid-view - fast load list view, http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee

http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee - fast load tile view (but no images, can switch on images via advanced button)

http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-roasters - list of all the roasters used on the website

You can navigate direct to the specific coffee bean of interest on the roaster's pages, by clicking on Coffee Name.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

This still has roast profile on it dark etc... Again ill make the case what Hasbean say is "medium dark" or Union say as Dark will not be the same as say Coffee Compass describe ...

Again take my feedback with a pinch of salt , as I do not think this app is aimed at me or they way I buy coffee.


----------



## 9719 (Mar 29, 2015)

Hi

Just to let you know that the link at point no.4 that is supposed to go to the list of roasters needs changing it's currently going to:

http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-roasters%22

Needs to have the %22 removed then you arrive at the correct page and not a blank.

Keep up the excellent work it's really proving useful and informative.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Mrboots2u said:


> ... as I do not think this app is aimed at me or they way I buy coffee.


So, how do you buy your coffee?


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Hi, just a quick update on coffee beans resource, that I am working on (was on several holidays







and busy otherwise







but hope to push faster now):

*Update:*

1. Added new roasters, from 37 since last update, to now comparing beans from *53 roasters* (~850 beans). New roasters since last update:

*Round Hill Roastery, Dark Arts Coffee, Small Batch Coffee, Clifton Coffee, 92 Degrees, Wogan Coffee, Curve, Extract, Salford Roasters, Ancoats Coffee, Campbell & Syme, Second Crack, The Steamie, Bean Brothers, Silver Oak Coffee, Shot Yard.*

2. You only see products from 51 roasters at the moment, because Cambridge Coffee Company and 92 Degrees are out at present.

3. Full *List of Roasters* with some *statistics* can be found here : http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-roasters

4. All the filtering is still present in *Advanced* Settings, however I am thinking about redesign, as current advanced settings it's too cluttered.

5. I am somewhat stuck on filtering by *varietal*, because (unlike taste notes, in Advanced Settings) some of the subcategories belong to multiple categories, for example Maracaturra comes from two variety branches, Bourbon and Typica, both of which come from a single variety - Yemen. So the categories branch out and then branch in again. Therefore, for now, I simply list all available varieties in the list at the top, so you can click and see all the beans of a specific variety. At least until I figure out what's the best way to select multiple varieties and or their groups.

6. Started gathering postage information and thinking how to show it on the page.

*To Do:*

1. Still gathering alternative information about the roast where available, i.e. espresso, filter, omni - and thinking how to best show it on the page.

2. Add more roasters









3. Design better selection by varietals

Ref: http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-grid-view

http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-grid-view - fast load list view, http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee

http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee - fast load tile view (but no images, can switch on images via advanced button)

http://coffeediff.co.uk/coffee-roasters - list of all the roasters used on the website

You can navigate direct to the specific coffee bean of interest on the roaster's pages, by clicking on Coffee Name.


----------



## Iris (Oct 29, 2018)

Thankyou for this resource, it has been really helpful and useful, I used this today, and even discovered a roaster I had not previously heard of, put an order this morning for a new bean to try, cant wait to try it







wogan coffee- Kenya Dormans AA plus.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Iris said:


> Thankyou for this resource, it has been really helpful and useful, I used this today, and even discovered a roaster I had not previously heard of, put an order this morning for a new bean to try, cant wait to try it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the encouragement







I need it, from time to time, to keep me going. Ah, Wogan coffee, they're good.

I am not rating rosters, at least for now. Currently trying to list things with as objective information as possible without any ratings, since the ratings could be subjective. If you go to advanced button, you can select only the roasters you trust and search for taste notes, etc, only from those roasters. But one of the points for the resource is to give people alternatives and discover new roasters and beans in one place, updated daily







. updated several times a day, in fact!


----------



## MildredM (Feb 13, 2017)

It is a fabulous resource - I'm surprised you haven't had roasters wanting to advertise on your site (although you probably don't want them to)!


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

MildredM said:


> It is a fabulous resource - I'm surprised you haven't had roasters wanting to advertise on your site (although you probably don't want them to)!


Thank you MildredM. I am surprised about roasters too







It looks like many of them are into their coffee more than they are into marketing, which is good news for us, but dangerous for them.


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

Hi, I just crawled back from the heap of rocks of human existence and, at the risk of being chastised for reviving an old thread, wanted to post a quick update about coffee beans resource, that I've been chipping away at, for some time (Coffee Diff):

1. Added many more roasters (currently over *3000 beans* from *256-259 UK roasters* are displayed, depending on some roasters out of stock or technical glitches), updated several times a day.

2. Started listing *coffee subscriptions* (with semi useful information on them 😊), not many at present.

3. Added/refined *find similar* button against each coffee bean, which will try and order similar beans first. It's not too bad.

4. Added another description of roast level/type. Now it also has (where possible) filter/espresso/omni in addition to light/medium/dark/etc. The roast level is and arbitrary and contentious issue, I understand. The information is taken from the roaster's description. But algorithm sometimes gets it wrong 😐

5. List of Roasters page, contains interesting stats (number of beans, min/max price) for each roaster, but also lists more roasters (at the bottom) that are not actively monitored, just the link to roaster.

6. The links to beans by *origin* and *variety* are still not pretty and just freeform text, the number next to each link indicates number of beans matching that category.

As always, any suggestions or criticism are welcome.


----------



## Stox (Jul 19, 2020)

Hi

This is definitely the most comprehensive resource of this type I have found, so thank you for your efforts.

One thing that might be nice to have is an altitude filter. I realise doing this reliably would be difficult because a number of roasters don't put the information on their website which, in turn, tends to reduce the chance of me buying from them. I have already found the roast level/type filters have to be treated with care for this reason.

Cheers


----------



## VeryFastTrack (Sep 19, 2020)

Hi @Beanedict,

This is a great list, with more coffee beans that I can try (actually very impressive).

Though I cannot access the site any more, being welcomed with an error "502 Bad Gateway".

Cheers


----------



## Beanedict (Aug 14, 2017)

VeryFastTrack said:


> Hi @Beanedict,
> 
> This is a great list, with more coffee beans that I can try (actually very impressive).
> 
> ...


 fixed now, thanks for letting me know. it happens sometimes. need to spend money on a better server


----------

