17 replies to this topic

[FoodMan]

Mr. Asimov, thank you for taking the time to join us in this chat.

We have discussed the star rating system that the Times uses extensively on e-gullet. does it work? should it be removed or replaced? what value does it have? what is a four star restaurant? etc....

Can you please discuss you point of view on what the stars in restaurant star ratings mean? Can/should it be improved upon? If yes, how?

Thanks again,
Elie

[Eric Asimov]

I honestly think it works pretty well, especially when you get to know the tastes and attitudes of the critic. Context is crucial, as I'm sure you all know. A restaurant that aims for a four-star rating and receives a three is not nearly the same as a restaurant that aims for two and over-achieves to three.

In my brief time as an sub, I found giving out stars entirely thankless, and I've always been grateful that the NYT editors never required a ranking system with $25 and Under. Any critic will tell you the star system distracts readers from what's most important -- our words!

What specifically have you all proposed as improvements?

[rlibkind]

What specifically have you all proposed as improvements?

Well, our colleague Holly here uses grease stains in place of stars.

[Eric Asimov]

Excellent! wine stains, grease stains, belches......emoticons

[Fat Guy]

To the extent that there has over time been much direct competition against the Times restaurant reviews, it would seem to have come from New York magazine and the New York City restaurant reviews in Gourmet magazine. Especially in the era when Gael Greene, David Rosengarten and Ruth Reichl were reviewing simultaneously for New York, Gourmet and the Times, I get the sense that there were three major voices. It's worth noting that neither the New York or Gourmet reviews has ever been accompanied by any kind of rating. Which leads to the question, why does the Times maintain a star-rating system at all? Is it an attempt to give the reviews more commercial viability, in the way that positivistic ratings of many kinds do (thumbs up, thumbs down, etc.), or is it an attempt to be like the Michelin guides, or is it because someone at the Times for whatever wacky reason wants to distract readers from the words of the critics, or what?

[rich]

You asked what some suggestions have been on the board. For the most part, there have been two. One is to do away with the star system and allow the prose (or lack thereof) to speak for itself. The other has been to award separate stars for food, ambiance, service - similar to what the SF Examiner is doing.

Personally, I believe the star system should be abandoned. Its time has come and gone. It was created in era when restaurants operated on a different scale than they do today. When an excellent Thai place like Sri gets two stars, it is placed in an category that it does not belong. Not that the food isn't worthy of that mark (maybe it's worth more), but the restaurant itself is not a "star worthy" place by the current NY Times standards. It has no wine list, no ambiance and minimal service.

By awarding it two stars, the critic has done a disservice to the restaurant and public. As you know, many people look at the stars and never read the actual review - especially as time passes. Someone at sometime will look at Sri as the highest rated Thai in NYC and decide to travel into Queens. More than likely, said individual will be disappointed with their "find" because of the items mentioned above.

At the very least, if the NY Times would separate the stars, this type of problem wouldn't exist. And while they're at it, the powers that be (the same ones who begged Shaw to take the critic's job), should re-think the Friday "Dining Out" column and change it from being the "pre-review" of the "real review." It would be a great way to review "middlebrow" restaurants that don't fit in either the primary or $25 category.

Edited by rich, 15 February 2005 - 08:38 AM.

[jogoode]

By awarding it two stars, the critic has done a disservice to the restaurant and public. As you know, many people look at the stars and never read the actual review - especially as time passes. Someone at sometime will look at Sri as the highest rated Thai in NYC and decide to travel into Queens. More than likely, said individual will be disappointed with their "find" because of the items mentioned above.

The Times should also shorten all sentences in the main restaurant reviews so that they're under ten words. That way, anyone who is mindless enough to blindly head out to Woodside expecting to find David Burke & Donatella will be able to finish reading the reviews.

[rich]

By awarding it two stars, the critic has done a disservice to the restaurant and public. As you know, many people look at the stars and never read the actual review - especially as time passes. Someone at sometime will look at Sri as the highest rated Thai in NYC and decide to travel into Queens. More than likely, said individual will be disappointed with their "find" because of the items mentioned above.

The Times should also shorten all sentences in the main restaurant reviews so that they're under ten words. That way, anyone who is mindless enough to blindly head out to Woodside expecting to find David Burke & Donatella will be able to finish reading the reviews.

The number of people who do that would probably surprise you.

[jogoode]

By awarding it two stars, the critic has done a disservice to the restaurant and public. As you know, many people look at the stars and never read the actual review - especially as time passes. Someone at sometime will look at Sri as the highest rated Thai in NYC and decide to travel into Queens. More than likely, said individual will be disappointed with their "find" because of the items mentioned above.

The Times should also shorten all sentences in the main restaurant reviews so that they're under ten words. That way, anyone who is mindless enough to blindly head out to Woodside expecting to find David Burke & Donatella will be able to finish reading the reviews.

The number of people who do that would probably surprise you.

(Really? Wow. )

What I'm saying is that the Times shouldn't pander to those who would do that. I know you use Sripraphai because it's an extreme example, but if the argument is that the system is deceiving, I think it's a silly one. Disagree with Sripraphai's 2-star rating or not, it's not the injustice it's been made out to be nor does it undermine the star system. To quote Sir Eric Asimov: Context is crucial.

The stars offer a handy way to refer to what the Times critic thought of the restaurant. It's more descriptive than the short answer to the question of, "What did Gourmet think of Ducasse?" "Well," someone might begin... In response to the same question asked about the Times's judgment, you can say "Three stars." Those in the know will understand what that means. Those who aren't can be after a short explanation. Its descriptiveness make it more relevant to a mass audience.

The star system also helps perpetuate the New York Times brand, which is what sells $150,000 per page ad space.

[Eric Asimov]

I cannot tell you why the NYT began using the star system. It's been in place since Craig Claiborne's day, and as you can imagine, the newspaper does not tamper lightly with traditions. (We can add color, but we can't change "$25 and Under!'').

I think, though, that the level of debate the stars provoke is evidence that the system is effective. It's also evidence that we all need to be more flexible in how we interpret them. I personally think a two-star rating for Sripraphai was just fine. I have little sympathy with those who clip the stars box and race out expecting a white tablecloth and fine china. C'mon, people. There's a limit to how much the public can be spoonfed!

A far more compelling area of discussion is whether the star system should expand, to award scores for service, ambience, wine list, etc. I think that might be helpful to everybody. But not at the expense of an overall score. Some traditions are worthwhile. We make up for it by not awarding stars in our movie reviews.

[ariggsby]

A restaurant that aims for a four-star rating and receives a three is not nearly the same as a restaurant that aims for two and over-achieves to three.

What specifically have you all proposed as improvements?

I don't know that anyone has proposed a clear solution to the following, but one of the main objections I've seen is that the above claim about different kinds of 3-star ratings makes no sense whatsoever if you've only read the key published with the reviews. Now, several people have posted clear explanations of the real system on this board, but you have to read an awful lot of reviews to get even close to that kind of understanding.

In a related matter, there's the question of whether various critics have too narrow a vision of what constitutes a 4-star restaurant. Even granting that it has to excel in food, service, and ambience, and be in some sense a luxury place, the latter three terms seem perhaps to be defined in terms that are too narrowly French.

Andrew

[jhlurie]

Some traditions are worthwhile. We make up for it by not awarding stars in our movie reviews.

Silly me. I thought the Times did that just to be contrary.

I agree that people make too much of the star system. Then again, interpreting it is like a puzzle you have to figure out sometimes. Of course you could just read the review.

[rich]

By awarding it two stars, the critic has done a disservice to the restaurant and public. As you know, many people look at the stars and never read the actual review - especially as time passes. Someone at sometime will look at Sri as the highest rated Thai in NYC and decide to travel into Queens. More than likely, said individual will be disappointed with their "find" because of the items mentioned above.

The Times should also shorten all sentences in the main restaurant reviews so that they're under ten words. That way, anyone who is mindless enough to blindly head out to Woodside expecting to find David Burke & Donatella will be able to finish reading the reviews.

The number of people who do that would probably surprise you.

(Really? Wow. )

What I'm saying is that the Times shouldn't pander to those who would do that. I know you use Sripraphai because it's an extreme example, but if the argument is that the system is deceiving, I think it's a silly one. Disagree with Sripraphai's 2-star rating or not, it's not the injustice it's been made out to be nor does it undermine the star system. To quote Sir Eric Asimov: Context is crucial.

The stars offer a handy way to refer to what the Times critic thought of the restaurant. It's more descriptive than the short answer to the question of, "What did Gourmet think of Ducasse?" "Well," someone might begin... In response to the same question asked about the Times's judgment, you can say "Three stars." Those in the know will understand what that means. Those who aren't can be after a short explanation. Its descriptiveness make it more relevant to a mass audience.

The star system also helps perpetuate the New York Times brand, which is what sells $150,000 per page ad space.

My argument isn't that it's deceiving as much as it lacks any type of consistency. Of course I used Sri because it was an extreme example, but it underlines the problem with the system. I disagree with Eric and his assertion that two stars is an appropriate rating. It isn't under the current guidelines. The restaurant should not have been reviewed in the main column - but that's an argument for another day.

Too many people rely on the stars and don't understand what they mean; and under the current reviewer, I don't know what they mean. "The fault lies not in the stars, but in the inconsistency of their interpretation and deliverance."

Edited by rich, 15 February 2005 - 02:46 PM.

[Pan]

I agree with ariggsby that the big problem is the midleading key:

WHAT THE STARS MEAN:
(None)|Poor to satisfactory
*|Good
**|Very good
***|Excellent
****|Extraordinary
Ratings reflect the reviewer's reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration.

I find it unclear how price is taken into consideration. I've often felt that too low a price takes a restaurant out of the running for a star, but Bruni complained that Alain Ducasse was too expensive, so sometimes, too great a price can also penalize a restaurant.

But furthermore, is it really the case that all 1-stars are merely good, and that a place that's reviewed only in the "$25-and-Under" column is merely poor to satisfactory? Obviously, this is incorrect, but the New York Times has never seen fit to explain what the stars really mean. A lot of eGullet Society members believe they know what the stars are supposed to mean, but the key I quoted above sure doesn't tell us.

[jhlurie]

In a related matter, there's the question of whether various critics have too narrow a vision of what constitutes a 4-star restaurant.  Even granting that it has to excel in food, service, and ambience, and be in some sense a luxury place, the latter three terms seem perhaps to be defined in terms that are too narrowly French.

Andrew

That is the key to the whole controversy, isn't it? Is there an effective shorthand in the current system to indicate a restaurant is the best of it's class available, even if the bias of the system is against it because it's not... er... French enough?

[Eric Asimov]

Look, if our readership were primarily lawyers, then we'd have a reason to come up with rigid, spelled-out, programmatic definitions of the stars. But it's not. I think the stars offer a lot of latitude for each critic, just as they should. Each critic has his or her own interests, his own agenda, if you want to call it that, even if they aren't completely conscious of what it is. This may present problems when trying to compare restaurants reviewed by a previous critic with those reviewed by a new critic, but the stars are only the tip of that iceberg.

I really don't think it's a legitimate complaint that people will be confused by a two-star rating to a humble Thai restaurant. C'mon. Most people intuitively understand, as I said before, that there's a context for each review. These aren't Michelin stars.

I do believe there's a lot more freedom at the one and two star level than at the three and four star level. Certain expectations of comfort, in my mind, are built in at the more elevated level.

You can read the key, but remember, it's only a guideline. Add context, drink plenty of liquids and call me in the morning.

[Busboy]

Look, if our readership were primarily lawyers, then we'd have a reason to come up with rigid, spelled-out, programmatic definitions of the stars. But it's not. I think the stars offer a lot of latitude for each critic, just as they should. Each critic has his or her own interests, his own agenda, if you want to call it that, even if they aren't completely conscious of what it is. This may present problems when trying to compare restaurants reviewed by a previous critic with those reviewed by a new critic, but the stars are only the tip of that iceberg.

I really don't think it's a legitimate complaint that people will be confused by a two-star rating to a humble Thai restaurant. C'mon. Most people intuitively understand, as I said before, that there's a context for each review. These aren't Michelin stars.

I do believe there's a lot more freedom at the one and two star level than at the three and four star level. Certain expectations of comfort, in my mind, are built in at the more elevated level.

You can read the key, but remember, it's only a guideline. Add context, drink plenty of liquids and call me in the morning.

Here, here.

[Bux]

. . . . I think the stars offer a lot of latitude for each critic, just as they should. Each critic has his or her own interests, his own agenda, if you want to call it that, even if they aren't completely conscious of what it is. This may present problems when trying to compare restaurants reviewed by a previous critic with those reviewed by a new critic, but the stars are only the tip of that iceberg.
. . . .

Perhaps, but from time to time we will run across lists of restaurants with the various star ratings from different critics and little or no text. Given the number of restaurants and the number of restaurants that can be reviewed at the rate of once a week, there's a guarantee we'll be looking at comparisons that present problems. I think that's at the bottom of a lot of the disatisfaction with the star ratings. There are too many ratings that I can't fathom and a couple that were so unrelated to my reality of dining experience that while I still read reviews, I find the stars almost meaningless.

I doubt that the stars will disappear. On the otherhand, the public and especially the NY Times readers are so much more interested in dining than they were when Craig Claiborne was reviewing and they're interested to a greater degree. Craig wasn't an expert, he was the expert, but we've come to appreciate the subjectivity of reviewing even at its best. It's hard not to anticpate a major overhaul of the way reviewing is being done at the Times.