Anonymous
Post 08/01/2020 14:52     Subject: These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
Anonymous wrote:Has anyone tried this recipe using an 8x8 or loaf pan, if so how long to bake? Wondering if they still turn out.


I made them in round glass cake pans yesterday, so basically like blueberry coffee cakes? Came out pretty good. Although I still prefer with the lotus liners because the edges crisp better in those liners.
Anonymous
Post 08/01/2020 11:21     Subject: Re:These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
My favorite blueberry muffin recipe is Thomas Keller’s. I swear I’m not a food snob and it’s just a muffin but it’s a very good muffin. I usually don’t bother with the topping and I use whatever blueberries I have.
Anonymous
Post 08/01/2020 11:18     Subject: These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
Anonymous wrote:I couldn’t find those nice liners in stock anywhere.

I just bought them on Amazon and they arrived yesterday.
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2020 17:36     Subject: Re:These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We made them. I thought they were pretty gross. Too sugary. It really affirms for me that the NYT Cooking section is pretty bad and that someone is trying very hard to use DCUM to advertise the NYT. Shame on them.


I've given shout outs to NYT food section before, and I swear I don't work there. I haven't tried these muffins yet. If I did, I'd probably cut the sugar in half. I do that for many desserts. This recipe looks extra sweet.



I don't believe you. I think you're doing a bad job at trying to be an "influencer." Reason: no one puts the source in the title. The only posts that do are the skanks trying to be NYT influencers. Go back and look at page after page of threads. The evidence is very clear.


Just to clarify since you're responding to me, I didn't start this particular thread. Haven't made the muffins. They look too sweet as written. I get the NYT through work, so I use their food section. Have had mostly great experiences, especially using the comments. So much better than many blogs where people give high ratings based on how something looks - the NYT commenters are generally people who have made the dish and are constructive.

My main "miss" from NYT was actually one of their most popular recipes accros other platforms like Instagram. "The stew." I thought it was tremendously bland.


Okay, MY BAD. Then it is the OP who is a skank trying to be an "influencer." I think the whole product is bad and I am annoyed every time I see a thread title with the NYT Cooking in it. Pay money for advertising. Don't schill products under the guise of a discussion.


+1
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2020 17:16     Subject: Re:These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
I made these with my 10 year old son after reading these fabulous reviews. I thought they were good, not fabulous but good. The rest of my family thought they were great and devoured them. I had no paper cupcake holders in the house and just sprayed nonstick in the cupcake tin. Itwas fine.
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2020 14:41     Subject: Re:These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We made them. I thought they were pretty gross. Too sugary. It really affirms for me that the NYT Cooking section is pretty bad and that someone is trying very hard to use DCUM to advertise the NYT. Shame on them.


I've given shout outs to NYT food section before, and I swear I don't work there. I haven't tried these muffins yet. If I did, I'd probably cut the sugar in half. I do that for many desserts. This recipe looks extra sweet.



I don't believe you. I think you're doing a bad job at trying to be an "influencer." Reason: no one puts the source in the title. The only posts that do are the skanks trying to be NYT influencers. Go back and look at page after page of threads. The evidence is very clear.


Just to clarify since you're responding to me, I didn't start this particular thread. Haven't made the muffins. They look too sweet as written. I get the NYT through work, so I use their food section. Have had mostly great experiences, especially using the comments. So much better than many blogs where people give high ratings based on how something looks - the NYT commenters are generally people who have made the dish and are constructive.

My main "miss" from NYT was actually one of their most popular recipes accros other platforms like Instagram. "The stew." I thought it was tremendously bland.


Okay, MY BAD. Then it is the OP who is a skank trying to be an "influencer." I think the whole product is bad and I am annoyed every time I see a thread title with the NYT Cooking in it. Pay money for advertising. Don't schill products under the guise of a discussion.
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2020 14:38     Subject: Re:These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We made them. I thought they were pretty gross. Too sugary. It really affirms for me that the NYT Cooking section is pretty bad and that someone is trying very hard to use DCUM to advertise the NYT. Shame on them.


I've given shout outs to NYT food section before, and I swear I don't work there. I haven't tried these muffins yet. If I did, I'd probably cut the sugar in half. I do that for many desserts. This recipe looks extra sweet.



I don't believe you. I think you're doing a bad job at trying to be an "influencer." Reason: no one puts the source in the title. The only posts that do are the skanks trying to be NYT influencers. Go back and look at page after page of threads. The evidence is very clear.


Just to clarify since you're responding to me, I didn't start this particular thread. Haven't made the muffins. They look too sweet as written. I get the NYT through work, so I use their food section. Have had mostly great experiences, especially using the comments. So much better than many blogs where people give high ratings based on how something looks - the NYT commenters are generally people who have made the dish and are constructive.

My main "miss" from NYT was actually one of their most popular recipes accros other platforms like Instagram. "The stew." I thought it was tremendously bland.
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2020 14:37     Subject: These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
Has anyone tried this recipe using an 8x8 or loaf pan, if so how long to bake? Wondering if they still turn out.
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2020 14:33     Subject: These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
Anonymous wrote:I couldn’t find those nice liners in stock anywhere.


Just use a non stick pan. I rarely use liners. I think they come out better without them. Liners are mainly handy for passing things out at a birthday party or whatnot.
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2020 13:55     Subject: Re:These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We made them. I thought they were pretty gross. Too sugary. It really affirms for me that the NYT Cooking section is pretty bad and that someone is trying very hard to use DCUM to advertise the NYT. Shame on them.


I've given shout outs to NYT food section before, and I swear I don't work there. I haven't tried these muffins yet. If I did, I'd probably cut the sugar in half. I do that for many desserts. This recipe looks extra sweet.



I don't believe you. I think you're doing a bad job at trying to be an "influencer." Reason: no one puts the source in the title. The only posts that do are the skanks trying to be NYT influencers. Go back and look at page after page of threads. The evidence is very clear.
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2020 13:36     Subject: These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
I couldn’t find those nice liners in stock anywhere.
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2020 09:31     Subject: Re:These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The anti-sugar Bs ruin everything.


I am by no means anti-sugar, but a cup and half of sugar in a dozen muffins is a LOT.


How much sugar do you guys recommend instead?


I’d cut it to a cup and go down from there.
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2020 09:22     Subject: Re:These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The anti-sugar Bs ruin everything.


I am by no means anti-sugar, but a cup and half of sugar in a dozen muffins is a LOT.


How much sugar do you guys recommend instead?
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2020 09:19     Subject: Re:These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
Anonymous wrote:We made them. I thought they were pretty gross. Too sugary. It really affirms for me that the NYT Cooking section is pretty bad and that someone is trying very hard to use DCUM to advertise the NYT. Shame on them.


I've given shout outs to NYT food section before, and I swear I don't work there. I haven't tried these muffins yet. If I did, I'd probably cut the sugar in half. I do that for many desserts. This recipe looks extra sweet.
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2020 08:36     Subject: Re:These NYTimes blueberry muffins are so simple, so cheap, and OMG good. Seriously, make them
We made them. I thought they were pretty gross. Too sugary. It really affirms for me that the NYT Cooking section is pretty bad and that someone is trying very hard to use DCUM to advertise the NYT. Shame on them.