Sephora

Oh yes Target (eta and Ulta) has had their packaging moments @WinglessOne 🙄 I recognized that oversized package!

@katyruddrn the DHC is a good one. Burt’s Bees has a very nice cleansing oil as well, although it isn’t k-beauty.

@WinglessOne Many thanks for that info!

@Mellmars1185 It sounds very non committal in case of no appetite due to the heat:)

@AreanneMae The best thing for fading scar redness quickly is Mederma scar gel. You can get it at most drugstores at the Pharmacy 😉

I love the pic, @QueenMarceline!

@greeneyedgirl107 Well, at least Beautypedia's not pretending to be separate from Paula's Choice anymore. 🤣 The clear bias in several of their reviews was astounding. Some reviews were objective and I understand why many folks found the site to be a helpful resource. But it seems enough other people complained about the bias and inconsistency that PC decided to drop product reviews altogether and make Beautypedia an ingredient rating tool. I mean, I'm sure other reasons played a factor that only employees know (example: maybe Unilever didn't want to be responsible for reviewing other brands' products and the potential resulting backlash). But I'm kinda sad that you and others have lost what was a helpful resource for you. I guess PC/Unilever wants Beautypedia to give users a simplified view of best, good, bad, etc. ingredients for any product. They've simply hooked this tool into the existing PC ingredient dictionary to provide more details. I'm sure many people will like the simple pie chart presentation and this type of ingredient rating. Since I'm an ingredient-driven nerd, I prefer INCIdecoder's presentations via ingredient types/categories and chart with a few ratings. (INCIdecoder hasn't rated all ingredients in their database.) I assume PC's Beautypedia team has more experience in cosmetic chemistry and/or dermatologist or esthetician practice than INCIdecoder's team—though I wish PC would be more specific/detailed about that—but I like that both sites still cite studies to back their explanations and ratings. To test Beautypedia, I entered the INCI list of The Ordinary's Alpha Arbutin + HA serum. Apparently the tool doesn't recognize "alpha arbutin" (with or without a hyphen) as an ingredient: it gave me info on alpha bisabolol instead, which is definitely not the same ingredient. 🤦‍♀️ I had to change my input to just "arbutin" to get Beautypedia to find it in the ingredient database. If this tool's gonna be this fussy about inputs, it's gonna frustrate people. I'll let PC know they should widen the acceptable keywords for each ingredient. Also, I see this new tool now advertises (eh, suggests 😂) PC products related to ingredients. Not necessarily a bad thing since it's at PC's site. Just amusing, when I remember Beautypedia's "reviews" of PC products were all 5 stars and most read exactly like brief marketing blurbs.

@Guessgal, I'm so sorry; I should have been more clear. Thank you for pulling out your NARS lippie and following up. Your description of the Lancome case helps a lot. From your photo, it looked like the case was softer than what I think of traditional lipstick cases or Lancome cases. Makes me want to pick up one (or maybe two) of the lipsticks from this collection. Thank you!