The new Uber arrived today and I am very excited.  This probably could have been a post for the Square Mile Blog, but there are many more exciting/important things to post on there!

What’s different about this Uber?  The capacity is bigger.  We sometimes used the old one for cupping, but it had more of a cafe use/quick recovery capacity so couldn’t do many bowls.  This one has a 6 litre boiler – very exciting!  This one has a flow control dial, instead of an button control.  It also has some beta software for us to test out.

I missed the Uber when it was gone.  My brewed coffee consumption dropped (a bad thing).   My experimentation also dropped off a little (also a bad thing).  I hope to get that going again.  I also grew irrationally annoyed with kettles (a weird thing?).

Before anyone accuses me of spam (perhaps fairly) I should make clear that we don’t make any money from the sale of Uber boilers, though yes – they are now available for sale.  It is just a project that we’re really excited about and it has been, and will be, a great tool for exploring coffee.  We’re extremely grateful to Marco – they are splendid!

Related posts:

1. UK Cupping Competition Just a quick post really about entering the Cupping competition...
2. Introduction to the Uber Meant to cross post this on here after posting on...
3. A grand unified theory of espresso Not too long ago I posted on Home Barista about...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Having tasted coffee that had been aerated, as well as coffee brewed with aerated water, against a standard brew there had been a noticeable difference: an improvement.  Surely, then, this would be something to do in a cafe setting?  If it is going to improve the experience for the consumer, then one would be foolish not to, right?

What my brains keeps asking is whether or not they’d notice?  Without the comparative brew, how would they know that it was incrementally better than it otherwise would have been?  If all theatre of preparation was removed and they were served the finished product on its own, would they notice something was better than it had been before?  Better than expected? Maybe even the best ever?  This has left me thinking about the divisions or tiers of sensory experience in coffee.  I was very happy drinking slightly underextracted,  somehwat updosed cups of coffee because my memory of taste was poor and this was – as far as I could tell – tasty.  Out of isolation, compared to a fuller extraction from a slightly lower dose, these cups suddenly faired very poorly.  I couldn’t really understand how I had enjoyed them so much.

When I visit a cafe, sit down and drink a cup of coffee – how good does it have to be to be enjoyable?  More importantly – how much better does it need to be for any and all consumers to notice an improvement and to have a better experience.

We can all agree that espresso machine technology right now is chasing the next increment, and it seems to be pressure that is being looked to to deliver it.  It will need to be a big jump, because our human shot to shot variation tends to remain within the window of tasty for most customers and we know how big that shot to shot variation is.

It has been, in my short coffee career, the raw product that has taken the most noticeable leaps forward – be it in exploring different varieties or improving processing.  People have had distinctly, remarkably better coffee and as a result have (by and large) been willing to pay a little more for it.

The same is probably true for most foods.  Reading through a Heston Blumenthal recipe you can be in no doubt that the method behind creating the ratio of aged to fresh pizza dough is based on rigorous comparative testing but if you skipped the step of resting half of it for a day to improve flavour, at the expense of elasticity, and just used fresh there is a good chance that it will very delicious.  It is perhaps doubtful that you would, in an isolated instance, get  distinctly more enjoyment out of it without a better or worse benchmark.

This doesn’t mean I think we should give up.  On occasion we manage to make planets align, all the details falling into place, and we have a truly memorable, exceptional experience.  I suppose with the Trifecta looming we should evaluate exactly what we expect from it – because I don’t think it is designed (from my very, very limited understanding) to create better tasting coffee any more than the Clover was designed to make better tasting coffee.¹ The customer shouldn’t be looking for signs that say “Trifecta brewed coffee here”, because it isn’t going to be the machine that creates a new tier of deliciousness.  This is in no way meant to be negative about the machine – I look forward to the opportunity to play with one, to experiment and to drink some coffee from one.  I don’t really think a lot of false hype will really help here either, but hopefully you get the point I am trying to make before I somehow dig myself into a hole…

Back on topic – for all the love we have for technology as an industry, if we look outside it seems to be that service, engagement and interaction are better avenues to explore to yield a noticeably better experience for the customer in our cafes.

1. It looks like it is built for speed, repeatability and control but at best we can only hope that it makes the resulting liquid taste like the coffee we started with.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

There are, however, rare instances where I think it is entirely worth it and this is one of them. There is more information about the coffee on the product page, but we want to keep up the spirit of generosity of people like Aida Batlle and Gwilym and we want to raise as much money as we can.

You can read more about this coffee and what we are doing here. I hope you’ll consider buying a bag.

Related posts:

1. Some Counter Culture Coffee Usually the incessant and nagging ringing of my doorbell doesn’t...
2. Presents! The last couple of days have been great! Three different...
3. The Bodum Kona After the Midlands UKBC heat Anette and I drove over...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

At the London Gastronomy Seminars I was given a Mypressi Twist to play with by the UK distributor.  I had been toying with buying one having seen the hype online, so this was a rather pleasant surprise.

I didn’t really get a chance to play with it til yesterday afternoon.  I’ve played with it some more today and this is just a quick summary of my thoughts and what I think is particularly interesting about it.

First off – it makes pretty good espresso.  I know I am hardly the first person to make this observation, but I think everyone who tries it is pleasantly surprised.  I think with a few adjustments to technique then you can get something better than any espresso machine in its price bracket, or up to two or three times its price.  If you like milk drinks though – then this may not appeal to you.

I pulled a couple of shots yesterday, and for shot number three my curiousity kicked in.  What I think is most exciting about this is its potential for experimenting with extraction.  We can only really (safely) use water in an espresso machine.  My first thought was to reach for some whisky.  I probably should have heated it up first, as it was not delicious cold – though the shot did still look pretty good.  I then attempted a little macchiato using milk to brew the coffee.¹.  In hindsight I should probably have used skimmed milk, as the full fat seemed to clog the extraction and the result was (simply put) not good.  But there was potential!

This makes me quite excited about its possible use in barista competitions.  In the past it has been completely illegal to put anything other than coffee in the portafilter (for good reason!) but this would let you infuse anything you like.  You’ll still need to pull and use 4 shots from the competition espresso machine but the applications within signature drinks are almost endless.

You could brew espresso starting with brewed coffee.  You could use espresso and push it through something else to extract flavour into it.  In fact, I am going to pause writing this post and check how many shots you can get in the water section of the twist…..

*time passes*

OK – so 4 shots of espresso fit pretty nicely into the top chamber.  And the espresso seems to pull in a fairly normal (if slightly slow way).  This is a double espresso, brewed using 4 espressos:

The taste?  Not so great, not as bad as I was expecting, but not so great.  The texture was unbelievable.  The point is that this is exciting!  I should add that points for creativity in competitions don’t come from using clever things, or having a wild idea – they come from using clever things, or wild ideas to create something tasty.  There are no points for novelty.

The more I think about it, the more possibilities there seem – non-coffee applications too.  Cocktail people would surely have a million more ideas than me.  I still wonder though – what about pushing vodka through a basket of lemon and lime zest?  What if you use CO2 instead of N20? What if? What if? What if?

I’ve gotten off topic! Back to using it to brew coffee:

I have what not many other people have – a 53mm Scace, back from my days at La Spaziale.  The Mypressi uses a 53mm basket.  It didn’t take a giant leap of thought to dig out my device and start testing the brew temperature.  I’d seen quite a lot of speculation online about it, and I can only post my limited experiments and findings.  Here is a short video:

Preheating the water chamber is incredibly important.  You could tell this was later on in my experiments from the starting temp of the scace probe, which may have influenced readings somewhat.  Without preheating the temp was hovering around 80C.  I am sure I could have heated the top chamber more and squeezed into the 90s.  Nonetheless I think it is a pretty respectable brew temperature.  I’d love to hear how people are getting max temp out of theirs.

I was also a little surprised that the dose and grind I had set on my Synesso seemed to work well.  Out of curiousity I pulled a double on each simultaneously – same dose, same grind setting, same brew time.  Here is the video, data on the shots afterwards:

Synesso shot:  18.5g coffee, 33.4g brew liquid.  Extraction percentage 18.6%

Mypressi shot: 18.5g coffee, 42g brew liquid.  Extraction percentage 18.9%

This is a single experiment, so it would be foolish to take too much from it.  One could speculate that with the temperature issues the Mypressi will struggle to extract coffee as quickly as a hotter profile on a machine.  The fact that it took almost 25% more liquid to get the extraction percentage to match (in the same time frame – with very different pressure profiles I might wager, sadly I only have a 53mm Scace 1.0 – not 2.0) would suggest that if you like shorter shots you may be better off dropping your dose and going finer, and if you want a heavier dose you may need to push a little more water through.

So far I’ve only spent a couple of days with it – but overall I’m quite impressed and looking forward to playing with it some more.  I’ll take more more readings with the ExtractMojo, see if the above experiment was repeatable.  Would love to hear people’s thoughts, suggestions and ideas!

1. Tim Styles should trademark the term MilkPressi Twist

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I had been in coffee well over a year before I really began to develop my vocabulary and descriptive skills, and that is probably more embarrassing as I had done some work in wine beforehand.

What does the coffee professional have access to, that the consumer doesn’t, that allows them to progress so fast?  It isn’t cupping bowls, or spoons.  It isn’t scoresheets, or large amounts of data about where the coffee is from.  It is regular opportunities for comparative tasting.

I know I just said that it wasn’t about cupping bowls and spoons, though most industry tasting is through the cupping process.  I strongly believe that the rituals and practices of cupping and were not created with the primary goal of tasting the coffee better.  Most of cupping’s routine is about searching for potential defect, looking for consistency, and trying to discern as much about the raw material as possible before purchase.  It isn’t a better way to develop your palate.  Where the cupper gains a quiet advantage is by going through a process of focused, conscious tasting.  You can do this at home very easily, though before you begin I’d advise you to watch Tom Owens’ video on Drinking Vs Tasting.  After that it is pretty simple:

1).  Buy two very different coffees. It doesn’t hurt to ask your local roaster/shop for guidance on this.

2).  Buy two small french presses. As small as you can get really.

3).  Brew two small cups of each coffee.  You could obviously do this with bigger presses and bigger cups, but I hate the idea of wasting good coffee or promoting overconsumption.

4).  Let them cool a little bit. It is much easier to discern the flavours when coffee has cooled a little bit.

5).  Start to taste them alternately. Take a couple of sips of one coffee before moving on.  Start to think about how the coffee tastes compared to the other.  Without a point of reference this is incredibly difficult.

6).  Focus on textures first.  To start with focus on things like the mouthfeel of the two coffees.  Does one feel heavier than the other?  Is one sweeter than the other?  Does one have a cleaner acidity than the other?

7).  Don’t read the labels as you taste.  Instead note down a handful of words about each coffee.  When you are done compare what you have to the roaster’s descriptions.  Can you see now what they are trying to communicate about the coffee?

8).  Don’t worry about flavours. ‘Worry’ is the key word here.  Flavours are the most intimidating part of tasting, as well as the most frustrating.  Roasters use flavours not only to describe particular notes – such as “nutty” or “floral” – but also to convey a wide range of sensations.  Describing a coffee as having “ripe apple” notes also communicates expectations of sweetness and acidity. If you do identify individual flavours – great!  Note it down!  If not then don’t worry.  Any words or phrases that describe what you are tasting qualify as being useful – random words or flavours.

Often upon reading the label you’ll have your frustration relieved as you find the word to describe what you tasted that you just couldn’t pull out from the back of your brain.  It suddenly seems so obvious!  This is part of building a coffee specific vocabulary of flavours – aromas and tastes that you initially find out of context in coffee become what I describe as “coffee versions of…”.

I can’t stress enough how important the comparative part of this is.  Tasting one coffee at a time means that you can focus all you want, but without something to compare it too you are working based on your memory of previous coffee which is unfortunately patchy, flawed and innaccurate.

How often should you do this?  Whenever you get the chance and have some time to relax and enjoy coffee.  Soon you’ll find describing coffees gets easier and easier, though this is something even industry veterans still work on.

One final note on comparative tasting:  The context, unfortunately, remains everything.  Even the best coffee tasters in the world – let’s take Cup of Excellence judges as an example – cannot score coffees accurately outside of context.  A jury member might score a coffee in El Salvador 92, then score a coffee in Guatemala 93.  These are not comparable scores, because the context of those scores has changed so much.  Within the individual competitions those scores matter, but outside they don’t.

Related posts:

1. SCAE Antwerp 2007 So, the long overdue post on the annual SCAE event...
2. SCAE Brewmaster Certification In the world of Speciality Coffee filter coffee isn’t very...
3. UK Cupping Competition Just a quick post really about entering the Cupping competition...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I might upload the presentation slides I used with notes at some point, but a little of what I spoke about is covered in a separate, and coincidentally written post on my other site here.

This first event was a precursor to a larger, public event that is planned.  I will post more details as soon as I have them, but if you are in London and interested in food and food science then it will be right up your street!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Something about this just doesn’t sit right for me. I am going to assume that if you are reading this then you probably clean a coffee machine the same way that I do: portafilters regularly scrubbed and immaculate, screens dropped and scrubbed clean, dispersion screw kept clean, group seal cleaned and dispersion block scrubbed clean. After all this we do run the backflush routine with a small amount of chemical.

For years I did the backflush bit wrong. ¹  These days I find the routine on the side of a bottle of Full Circle the best explanation and method. ²

Now as I understand it we are really trying to clean a small section of tube that runs between the solenoid valve and the dispersion screw. ³  This tube gets dirty because coffee travels up it during the pressure release at the end of pulling a shot when the solenoid opens up.  As such this tube can get a build up of unpleasant flavours.  This happens very slowly – compared to how quickly the dirt in a portafilter builds up and ruins a shot.  Flushing in between shots probably helps slow down the build up in the tube.

So when we backflush we switch the group on two pump in water to dissolve some chemical and then switch the group off, the solenoid pressure release sucking the chemical up the tube where it can start to strip off any build up.  We repeat this process to ensure thorough cleaning and then we go through a rinsing process.

I think we all agree that at this stage there is no chemical left behind, and if there were it would be a specific and unpleasant taint to the next shots.  However we are told that the next shot will taste bad regardless.  I would like to suggest that this bad taste is primarily due to a loss of heat at the group, affecting the brew temperature and creating an unpleasant underextraction.

First of all – this piece of information is pretty much written in stone but how many of you have tasted the next shot out?  Exactly how did it taste bad?  Very few people have tasted it because they are always told it is going to be bad, so why would you?.  Those of us that have have probably done so in one of two scenarios:

1).  Tasting immediately after a backflush.  Here the group has likely cooled down, because very little water has moved from the boiler out of the front of the group.  On some machines this may influence the brew temperature.   Plus we’ve left our portafilters out for a while and I would contend that the first shot you brew will be under temp.  We may have gotten into the habit of using that shot to bring the group and portafilters up to temperature, because we know it is a wasted shot regardless. ⁴

2).  The next morning.  Here the group has again cooled down due to a long period without water travelling from the boiler to the dispersion screen, and the shot would likely be undertemp.  If you leave a stock Linea alone for 30 minutes during the day you need to flush a lot of water through it to get it back up to maximum, stable brew temp.  What if you left it 8 hours?

In both cases it is somewhat likely that the poor taste of the shots could be primarily attributed to brew temperature.  I asked Josh Dick from Urnex this very question during our Barista Magazine article and there didn’t seem a more likely explanation.

I have a Synesso Hydra.  From leaving the pump to hitting the coffee the water travels through a good deal of metal piping.  Are we seriously suggesting that while it will pick up no metallic taint from the majority of its journey, but if a small tube near the coffee is not coated in coffee oil that it will somehow have a massive impact on taste when the rest of the machine’s metallic surface will not?  If that tube is dirty then I absolutely believe that it will have a negative impact on the shot, but too clean?

Last night I did a very simple experiment.  I chemically cleaned my machine, and left chemical in it for well over 2 hours.  I want it as clean as was possible.  This morning I dialled in the grinder on the left group, and once happy I then flushed the right hand group up as hot as I could.  Once I was satisfied that it was hot enough I pulled a shot and I drank it.  The seasoning shot.  Did it taste bad? No. Did it taste sour or metallic?  No. Could the fact that it was my first coffee of the day have influenced me? Absolutely.

However – lots of you reading this have coffee machines.  Lots of you probably have Scace devices.  I am absolutely happy to be proven wrong but I would just like to get to the bottom of this phenomenon.  How do seasoning shots taste to everybody?  Do we all agree on what is wrong?

1. I would put chemical in, switch on the pump – assume that this part was the cleaning part and let is run for 30 seconds and then just rinse everything clean.  A complete waste of time.
2. By the way – given the choice between Cafiza and Full Circle is anyone not opting for the sustainable option?  It may cost a little more but surely the tiny cost increase per backflush really doesn’t matter.
3. If I am wrong here – I am more than happy to be corrected!
4. I accept that on some machines backflushing and then immediate brewing may result in high/higher brew temperatures, but rarely are people pulling shots immediately afterwards – usually there is sufficient time for that extra heat to dissipate.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Coffee blogs have gone very quiet lately.  Hardly anyone is writing.  Some would say that blogs have had their day.  Others would say that twitter prevents something of blog-worthiness building up by dripping out people’s thoughts and ideas.

Either way it is a shame.  Perhaps some people think that there will be an improved signal to noise ratio, perhaps I am wrong to miss a lot of the posts.  I can hardly claim to be the most productive of bloggers either (despite being regularly accused of such things.)

Regardless of all the questions – huzzah for Sprudge!  I hope he keeps it going!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I’ve really enjoyed the discussion going on after this post.   One comment that stuck in my mind was Aldo’s Fazenda Kaquend COE Vs Maxwell House experiment. It definitely affected some decisions I made when I was choosing coffees to take with me to a public cupping I did in East London as part of a charity fund raiser.

I knew I would have two separate groups, of between 10 and 20 people each time.  I had agreed to do a cupping, rather than a tasting of brewed coffee (which I would prefer to do with the general public usually), because they were paying for a bit more of an experience.

So which coffees to choose?  I ended up taking a pre-ship sample of the Herbazu, a 2008 Costa Rican CoE sample¹, some Takengon, some Tegu AA and some store bought, preground coffee from Panama².

I love watching the public cup.  They don’t know the rules, the etiquette that we tend to abide by in the industry.  They pull faces, they talk a lot, they think out loud about what they are tasting and are easily distracted.

So – what was the reaction?  As they were cupping many people were surprised by the acidity in the coffees.  Some found this, initially uncomrfortable because it was so novel.  The strangest reactions were around the past crop and stale samples.  They didn’t use positive words to describe them (dusty, bitter, cardboard, nothing, flavourless) and yet before the reveal a quick poll showed them to be oddly popular.

As I revealed each coffee I got them to taste them again, to look for the positive attributes and to notice the negative attributes.  I did my best to explain why each key flavour/taste was there (in general terms – high growing altitude, light roasts, terroir, processing).  People agreed that the past crop tasty unpleasant and like wet jute.³

People also agreed that the stale coffee wasn’t very pleasant.  A couple of people seemed borderline outraged at the suggestion that they actually had to grind their coffee just before brewing to get a fresh cup.  I asked if they had a pepper mill.  They said yes.  I asked if they used it and if they considered it worthwhile.  They said they did, and I tried not to flog a dead horse.

When we cupped the coffees with explanations and revelations of what they were the overall preference of the group shifted away from the ‘bad’ coffees – as you would expect.  Nothing particularly surprising in people not wanting to admit they like something that is clearly ‘wrong’.  What remained interesting was the reaction by all involved to the Tegu lot.  Some loved the fruit, and others were almost offended that a coffee dared to taste so little like coffee.

I guess the only thing I can read into it is that we should be careful using the extremely unusual/super premium lots as conversion tools.  At least half the time they’ll probably reinforce the consumer’s original preference for stale, preground past crop.  In hindsight I wished I could have brought something very simple, very clean and sweet to put on the table.

1. I am not going to say which one, in case the roaster is still selling it!
2. Again, I am not going to say exactly who/where because I am not out to tarnish anyone’s name
3. Despite this sample sat in ziplock bag for 12 months – I can’t help but wonder what term we would use instead of baggy if coffee had never been shipped in jute – a subject for another post perhaps

Related posts:

1. Thoughts on the Chemex After giving in to the curiousity caused mostly by Tonx’s...
2. UK Cupping Competition Just a quick post really about entering the Cupping competition...
3. Thoughts on the last Esmeralda auction According to the owner of the stoneworks auction website, I...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

As always the paricipants there were way smarter than me and offered several interesting options. I dropped into the thread that this was part of my idea of a grand unified theory of espresso, and subsequently a few people mailed and pm’d me asking what on earth I was talking about and what density had to do with it.

Well, I should probably explain what I have been thinking. ²

When approaching a coffee and brewing it using an espresso machine you are often searching for an ‘ideal’ recipe for that coffee.  For many of us knowing as much about that coffee as possible often helps make intuitive judgements about things like dose and brew temp.  If I get my science wrong then please, please shoot me down. ³

One of the things that broke my head about roasting early on was the discovery that the longer/darker you roast the less potential solubles you have.  This may seem obvious to some but it always felt like the roasting process created many new flavours but one must distinguish between flavours and solubles.  This explains why instant coffee is roasting very fast and relatively light – they are interested in a percentage yield so the more solubles the better, regardless of taste.

Knowing this then made something I had experienced make apparent sense – darker roasts generally prefer higher doses, because you need more coffee to get more solubles to get a nice, thick and pleasant espresso.  But after a moments thought it didn’t make sense.  This would mean that you would get a thicker, heavier cup with a higher TDS measurement from lighter roasts but lighter roasts generally produced delicious but lighter bodied cups.  What nudged me towards density was how we approach very high grown coffees versus lower grown coffees.

Higher grown coffees (and let me make a broad sweeping generalisation here) have a much higher acidity than their lower grown brethren.  When brewed as espresso they can easily yield extremely acidic and unbalanced cups and, taking unbalanced and pronounced acidity as a sign of underextraction, I found that higher brewing temperatures helped to produce a more balanced cup.

What do lighter roasts and high grown coffees have in common:  higher densities.  Though there was more to extract (in theory) you had to work a lot harder to do it.  Therefore reducing the dose of a lighter roast/higher grown coffee gave you a higher ratio of water/energy to coffee to help extract a tasty cup.  (I often think of heat energy as some sort of currency, with which you can buy solubles.  The more heat, the more you extract/purchase.)

This is all well and good for convenient examples – high grown, light roasts versus low grown darker roasts.  Give me a clean prepped coffee from relatively low altitudes in Brasil, roast it into 2nd and I will likely be dosing quite high and not brewing too hot.  I’ll certainly be dosing it very different from how I might brew a lot of Aricha as a straight shot.

But what about a light roast of a low grown coffee, or a dark roast of something grown super high up?  This is what lead me to wanting to find a way to measure and compare the densities of coffee beans to see if there was correlation between the density of the end product and an ideal brew temperture of particularly effective dose.

So – if I have had such a good idea why don’t I do all the research and then publish it all at the end of it and try and stamp it “Hoffmann’s theory” or something equally absurd? (Apart from the fact that it is absurd).  Because I want to generate a little discussion about this.  I want people to weigh in and tell me I am being stupid/simplistic and to suggest better ways to test these ideas.  I want to understand espresso better so I can make better tasting drinks and translate coffee’s journey more transparently in the cup. ⁴

I really hope people will offer their opinions on this idea, shoot it down or take it and run with it.  I am going to start doing some basic testing and see what happens.  Lots of little experiments appeal. ⁵

1. There really is no better place on the web for these kinds of questions!
2. Some of this is based on personal preference, some on what seems to be fairly well agreed upon within the community of people who worry a lot about their espresso.
3. There is another post in the works about the value of being wrong and discussing it afterwards – yes, I have a big wrongness to confess to…..
4. I know this is a wordy post and all, and I would have put some nice photos in but my camera is dead
5. For example – if I roast two coffees til their densities match – will they grind the same, and at the same dose will they extract the same?  Would they be ideal, therefore, to blend together to get the most out of each of them.  This probably shouldn’t be a footnote, but it is.  So there.

Related posts:

1. Post 500: Espresso….. It only just dawned on me that this next post...
2. An experiment to determine freshness Freshness is one of those difficult terms in coffee because...
3. TDS, Chemex and London’s terrible water So thanks to the lovely people at Bunn I have...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.