Apple Rankings • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple Rankings

#11

Post by gammarator » Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 3:18 PM UTC

This appears to be one person’s subjective nonsense—I personally think SweetTango apples taste cloying artificial, for instance.

I like the website https://www.orangepippin.com/varieties/apples/ambrosia instead.

Re: Apple Rankings

#12

Post by sonofaragorn » Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 3:18 PM UTC

Surprised this domain was available

Re: Apple Rankings

#13

Post by humanistbot » Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 3:18 PM UTC

wlesieutre wrote: post #5

They've ranked Granny Smith as "Not worth eating" so right off the bat I can tell you the rating system is junk. It loses the most points on its "density." Can't say I've ever eaten a granny smith and thought "I enjoy this taste, but I sure wish I could change the density."

I sure do love me some Granny Smith apples, but probably because I grew up with them.

Taste is subjective. Any ranking system for taste is just popularity with extra steps.

Re: Apple Rankings

#14

Post by harveywi » Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 3:20 PM UTC

Xcelerate wrote: post #10

Totally disagree with SugarBee being so low. My understanding is that it was engineered to be an improved version of Honeycrisp. My wife and I did a head-to-head comparison of SugarBee and Honeycrisp, and the SugarBee won no contest. We got our apples from Sigona’s; maybe the list creator got a bad batch somewhere?

So you are essentially saying it was not an apples to apples comparison?

Re: Apple Rankings

#15

Post by dalbasal » Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 3:20 PM UTC

Finally! An objective ranking of apples. I for one am fed up with apples-to-oranges comparisons.

Re: Apple Rankings

#16

Post by Waterluvian » Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 3:22 PM UTC

McIntosh: “ A Seal-Skinned Canadian Letdown.” 45, horse food.

So it’s war then.

Re: Apple Rankings

#17

Post by parkingrift » Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 3:23 PM UTC

wlesieutre wrote: post #5

They've ranked Granny Smith as "Not worth eating" so right off the bat I can tell you the rating system is junk. It loses the most points on its "density." Can't say I've ever eaten a granny smith and thought "I enjoy this taste, but I sure wish I could change the density."

Granny Smith is a trash tier Apple. The skin is inedible and it is absurdly sour. It's only edible if you peel the skin, cut it up, ...and bake it in something else. Alternatively peel the skin, and dip it into something such as peanut butter. By itself, it's trash tier.

Re: Apple Rankings

#18

Post by drdo » Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 3:23 PM UTC

Wrong, granny smith is number one.

Re: Apple Rankings

#19

Post by ngalaiko » Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 3:24 PM UTC

a system that ranks Jazz apples as mediocre is obviously flawed

Re: Apple Rankings

#20

Post by dalbasal » Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 3:24 PM UTC

humanistbot wrote: post #13

wlesieutre wrote: post #5

They've ranked Granny Smith as "Not worth eating" so right off the bat I can tell you the rating system is junk. It loses the most points on its "density." Can't say I've ever eaten a granny smith and thought "I enjoy this taste, but I sure wish I could change the density."

I sure do love me some Granny Smith apples, but probably because I grew up with them. Taste is subjective. Any ranking system for taste is just popularity with extra steps.

Matters of taste are subjective, but subjective does not mean "all in your mind." There is such a thing as good music, good conversation, etc. There are no objective tests, but that's not the same as non existent.

Good tastes exists. OP just has bad taste (in apples).