What New York's cannabis sub is talking about

Brand mentions, and the scores reviewers gave their own purchases, pulled from public r/NYSCannabis discussion and counted separately. Data through July 29, 2026.

46 brands · n≥5 scoresMentions versus how people scored it

Every brand with at least 5 self-reported scores. Volume runs left to right, the median score bottom to top, and each dot is sized by how many scores it rests on.On a narrow screen the chart is replaced by the table below, which lists the same numbers for the brands it names. The named ones are the brands whose rank by score is at least 8 places better than their rank by mentions — a gap between two positions in a list, which is not the same as being obscure. Some of them are among the most discussed brands on the site.

Hover, tap or tab to any dot for its numbers.The table above carries the numbers for every brand the chart would name. Mentions use a log scale — the busiest brand here has 15 times the volume of the median dot on this chart, which a linear axis would flatten into a single column. The vertical axis is squashed for a different reason: The busiest brand with enough scores has 15 times the mentions of the median one. Scores bunch up at the top: 40 of these 46 brands sit at 8 or above. People mostly write reviews of things they chose to buy again — and 722 of the 2,678 review posts in this window are gone from Reddit, 590 of them removed by moderators rather than by their authors. Whatever was in those is not in these numbers, and there is no way to check which way it leaned.

134 scores10 brands are tied at 9.00

The median is a blunt instrument on this data: 10 brands land on exactly 9.00. Every score behind each of them is drawn below — one dot per score, the vertical mark is the median.listed below, lowest first. Alchemy Pure and NYCE have the same median and nothing else in common: Alchemy Pure's 5 scores run 8.75 to 9.5, while NYCE has somebody who gave it a 0. That is the whole reason the raw scores are on this page and not summarised into a spread number.

Dots left of the dashed line are scores of 6 or lower. Do not read the width of a row as a measure of anything: a brand with five scores shows five dots and a brand with fifty shows fifty, so the wider row is often just the one with more people in it. Count the dots, and look at where they sit.Scores of 6 or lower are marked in each list. Do not read the length of a list as a measure of anything: a brand with five scores shows five numbers and a brand with fifty shows fifty. Read where the numbers sit, not how many there are.

10 of 46 scored brandsScored better than their volume rank

The named dots from the chart above, with every score they rest on.The brands named in the table above, with every score behind each of them. Each one's rank by median score beats its rank by mentions by at least 8 places, its median is above the site-wide 8.5, and the lower end of its band is at least 8 — for 5 of the 10 it is exactly 8. That is a statement about the band, not about every score: 2 brands here have at least one score below 8, and they are shown below like everything else. 5 scores is 5 people; that is the floor here, not a guarantee.

Not everything has enough scores to appear above. Left Coast, Jenny's, Curaleaf and 2 others are being discussed heavily with fewer than 5 self-reported scores — mostly people asking where to find them rather than reporting back. They show up in the full list.

8 brands · Apr–Jun 2026Most discussed right now

Mentions in the last 3 complete months (Apr–Jun 2026), posts and comments. This is volume of talk and nothing else — a recall gets discussed as hard as a hit does, so read it as "what is being argued about", not as "what is good". And it can only rank brands the dictionary already knows: across the full record, 330 review posts are alive and readable but name no brand this site recognises, so whatever is being discussed under those names is missing from this list entirely.

The last two columns are all-time and stay that way. Those 3 months carry 343 reviews across the whole site, and only 46% of reviews carry a score at all. Narrow to one month and — counting every review in it as though it had a score, which flatters the count by more than double — just 4 brands could even reach 5. A median that appears at one window width and vanishes at another is worse than one that never appears, so it never does. Volume can be sliced by time; scores here cannot. The band under each median is where the median of a fresh sample that size would land, and the percentage beside it is how often — it is not the share of scores that fall inside the band. The arithmetic is on the method page.

5 brands · 47 of 299 reached the testBrands that only recently got talked about

A different question from the list above: that one is current volume regardless of how long a brand has been around, this one is when a brand first entered the conversation regardless of how loud it is now. Sustained discussion of these brands starts at the dates below — that is the first month with mentions that kept going, so an isolated earlier mention does not count. It is a fact about the discussion, not a claim about when they hit shelves.

Nothing here distinguishes a brand that genuinely caught on from one being pushed. We show the first month, the six-month average, and the score count — all three are things you can check yourself.

1 brand · n≥5 reviews and 5 scores per formatSame brand, very different products

A single number per brand hides this. This brand scores far better in one format than another, so the overall figure is misleading for whichever one you're actually buying. Both sides of the row clear the same floor as the main list — 5 scores — so neither is one enthusiastic post. At this floor only one brand on the site currently has two formats that both qualify.

Every score behind both formats is on the brand's own page.

676 scoresWhere the low scores are, by format

How you consume it changes what can go wrong — but not by enough for this sample to show it. The five rates run from 8% (flower) to 17% (vapes) — and that spread is what 676 scores split five ways look like when nothing is going on. Deal the same 71 low scores out at random 20,000 times, keeping each format's sample size fixed, and a gap this wide or wider comes up 34% of the time. No format here separates from the others. So read the five numbers below as counts, not as a ranking, and not as a reason to buy one format over another.

Share of self-reported scores that came in at 6 or less. The bars are ordered by that share, which is not the same as saying the order means anything — see the paragraph above. Hover or tap a bar for that format's median.The rows are ordered by that share, which is not the same as saying the order means anything — see the paragraph above. Each format's median is in the table below.

These rows do not add up to the whole site, and the gap is not rounding: 191 of the 1,599 counted reviews carry 63 scores that no format could be read off — the title and body never said whether it was flower, a cart, a preroll or an edible. 15 brands with reviews have no format attribution at all. Those reviews are in every brand-level number on this site and in none of the five rows above.

Everything above is aggregate. For a specific brand, start from the full list — it filters by format and by how many scores a brand actually has. How these numbers are produced.