KEY TO RATINGS:
Excellent: Results were consistantly well above average in multiple areas and any negatives were subtle enough as to not detract or cancel out the positives. Definitely worth repurchasing in large sizes.

Very Good: Results were consistantly above average in one or more areas and any negatives were subtle enough to avoid cancelling out positives. Would repurchase. Usually, there is some element that detracted it from being an excellent or its positives were very good but not stellar. Several of these were climatically limited to performing well in cooler temps only.

Good: There were positives with these that could not be denied; however, there were negatives that needed to be disclosed. Many of the “good” conditioners did not provide as much moisture as curlies frequently need (except the finest ones) or had nice curls but frizz or no frizz but limited curling. To avoid being in the “very good” conditioners, a conditioner would have to have at least one fault that was significant enough to make me hesistant to reuse, or the positives were weak enough to make the negatives have some pull and nullify the positives. These could be someone’s HG if that fault doesn’t occur for them or isn’t a factor (example: someone trying to enlongate their curls or someone with very fine hair that is not at all dry). Generally, I wouldn’t repurchase these personally, but if I was in a tight spot, I know I could use them short term.

Fair: These had at least one positive trait, but the negatives heavily outweighed that positive(s) without question. Obviously, there may be someone whose HG is one of these formulas because the company continues to sell it. However, I believe these are less likely to be favored. Several cleansing conditioners fell into this category because, as conditioners, they did not deliver enough positive to outweigh the negative. I would not repurchase fair conditioners to use as conditioners.

Poor: These had so much negative (and no positives beyond very subtle ones) that I simply could not recommend anyone try them unless a hair twin has had decent results. Obviously, there may be someone whose HG is one of these formulas because the company continues to sell it. However, I believe these are highly unliky to be favored. Many of them had significant negatives with long lasting buildup or other detrimental characteristics that caused me to rate them with a poor. Poor essentially meant to me that if I was stuck on a desert island and one of those conditioners was the only one available, I’d make my own from stuff on the island before I’d use that conditioner again.
Love-Hate: There were a few conditioners that I couldn’t see a trend (part of the country, water hardness, climate, curl type, etc) to determine who would or wouldn’t like them, but they are either adored or despised. For a conditioner to find its way into this category, it needed many devotees and opponents. My suspicion is these conditioners love-hate extremes are because of a tendancy toward buildup and levels of dryness/damage/porousity, but those are difficult criteria to quantify and measure.

Dry Climates Only: These were a set of products that had some rave reviews from many in drier climates but were horrible for me and many others in more humid climates. Because I do not live in a dry climate, I didn’t feel I could rate these fairly so I categorized them accordingly. Certainly, an individual in a humid climate may like one of these with other factors in play (water hardness, hair dryness, curl type), but the trend I saw suggested dry vs humid climatology being the primary deciding attribute.