Holly Moore

A side and almost always for me, when available, complimented by a side of greens. Both sides embellishing something barbecued or deep fat fried.

I remember working at a resort one summer while at college. I can still see the chef, elbows deep, mixing coleslaw in a large bowl. (Disclaimer - I was at least forearm deep into coleslaw the summer before my freshman year when working for a drive-in restaurant). A finger or two ain't all that big a thing.

Herald Square pigeon?

There may be hope and certainly a reason to hold off on that space flight: Salmonella Vaccine

David Segal's article in the Business Section of today's Times gives fascinating insight into the coming together of Daniel Boulud's DBGB - A great Sunday morning read. Even better, the illustration of the floor plan for the restaurant which evidently "sets Manhattan restaurant blogs abuzz." There is a enough deal to sense the flow of the kitchen and anticipate the potential problems. I'm putting my money on crashes between servers heading for the dish area and line cooks rushing to the walk-in.

In the first place, a substantial part of Frank Bruni's job is figuring out which restaurants get reviewed in the first place. If each reviewed restaurant is visited three times, and if he eats out 10 times a week, it means that about 70% of his meals do not result in a rated review. We don't hear about many of those meals, but they're an essential part of the job. Here's what Bruni reported in his original review: Le Cirque is, of course, famous for this, but Bruni's oeuvre is full of less conspicuous examples. Obviously, if he calls in advance and says, "I'm Frank Bruni of The New York Times, and I'd like to come hang out in your restaurant for a few days," he's going to be treated like royalty every time. Needless to say, the place will be spick 'n' span, their best people will always be on duty, they will never run out of anything, he'll always be seated at a prime table, he'll never wait for anything, yada, yada, yada. Are you kidding? They'd be delighted. Any restaurant would far prefer to be reviewed under circumstances they control, and are known in advance. The current situation, in which he shows up unannounced and may very well not be recognized immediately, is much more nerve-wracking for them. ← You have far more faith than I do in a restaurant's ability to up its game just because a reviewer is present. I don't believe the business is that controllable. Too many variables in preparing and serving meals. However to ease your concern, the writer could do the traditional pseudo-anonymous reviewing meals up front and then contact the restaurant for the hanging out. But if the earlier statistic in this thread is correct, that Bruni was recongized 2/3rds of the time, all your fears will come to pass whether the reviewer is eating or watching. The only way for the NY Times or any other publication to meet your criteria would be for them to replace a reviewer as soon as a pic of the reviewer makes the rounds. Otherwise there is a strong possibility that two out of three of a critic's reviews after the first few months on the job are tainted because the reviewer was recognized. There are also strong odds that a reviewer's experience over two or three meals will not be representative of a restaurant's capabilities or lack thereof. Let's say the reviewer and three other mouths had three meals at a restaurant. That is a total of twelve meals. Let's say it is a relatively small restaurant seating 100 and, over six days a week, averaging two turns for dinner - 1200 meals a week. To make the math easy, the place is open 50 weeks a year. The resultant review will be based on one percent of the meals the restaurant serves in a week and .002 percent of the meals served in a year. Neither is a particularly reliable sample.

I'm not describing a "grand tour" of a restaurant. Rather, a knowledgeable writer observing prep and turnout under the pressure of a couple or more services. Any flaws will appear, even though the staff knows a writer is present and making, at least, mental notes. Hadn't thought of it before, but perhaps give the writer the right to pull dishes off the line and sample them. I'd be surprised if an aware writer would not have caught on to Le Cirque's two levels of service over the course of hanging out for a couple of days. The biggest challenge to this approach, beyond trying something new, may be the willingness of restaurants to accept such a risky intrusion.

What you've described is not an evaluation, but a puff piece. If you believe the review is tainted once the reviewer is recognized (which I don't), then he'll be extra-tainted when he does this: It's no contest. The former. The latter approach might produce some interesting feature articles, but there's a 100% guarantee that the average diner will never be able to duplicate that experience.Bruni's current approach may have its flaws, but at least it's not 100% flawed, as this one is. ← I'm with oakapple. That approach would dash any last hopes of an objective review and end up conferring the most favorable words on the ones who are best at spinning a good PR yarn and being a "people person". I can't tell you the number of restaurants I've been to with admirable and impressive intentions and ambitions that simply didn't make interesting food. There are quite a few in this town already. Not to mention the fact that the sort of approach described would result in many of the top restos in town being Chodorow joints. If there's anyone in town whose words taste better than his food on average, it's the Chod. ← I'm with Holly. How does what I present, written by a New York Times caliber writer, lose any hope of objectivity? Anyone who knows restaurants will relate a far more objective experience if he has spent time in the kitchen and the dining room as opposed to merely sitting at a table and eating. The assumption that a good writer can not sift through a restaurant owner's BS is invalid.

What you've described is not an evaluation, but a puff piece.Totally depends on the writer. I assume the New York Times would not assign a writer who does puff pieces to such a position. If you believe the review is tainted once the reviewer is recognized (which I don't), then he'll be extra-tainted when he does this:It is not that I believe the review is tainted it is that the publications believe so, hence their focus on anonymity. It's no contest. The former. The latter approach might produce some interesting feature articles, but there's a 100% guarantee that the average diner will never be able to duplicate that experience.The reviewer uses his experience at a restaurant to predict the experience of his readers. Put a writer who knows front and back of the house into such a situation and he will have far better information upon which to base his prediction. I'd trust Bourdain's opinion following what I propose far more than that of any reviewer who has merely had a couple of meals at a place. We appear to disagree "100%" as to which approach is flawed.

The bringing together of food websites was a founding concept of eGullet.

This is a great opportunity for the Gray Lady to grow a Colbert-sized pair and scrap ho-hum traditional restaurant reviews in favor of a more comprehensive evaluation of a restaurant. NY restaurants appear to have an excellent intelligence network that quickly gets a pic of a reviewer on the wall of the kitchen or server's station. I've never been back stage at Daniel but imagine a wall, akin to the old FBI wanted poster walls at the post office, showing full face and profile views of every reviewer of import. Yet publications and their reviewers stress the importance of a reviewer's anonymity. If reviewers are identified so quickly and if Bruni's 2/3rds recognition factor is valid, are not many/most restaurant reviews, by their own standard of anonymity, tainted when the reviewer is recognized? Once recognized the reviewer will surely receive favorable treatment. Why else would everyone stress anonymity so? And is it not inevitable that most reviewers will sooner or later be identifiable by most restaurants - at least most high-end restaurants? I favor the hanging-out approach to the traditional anonymous restaurant meal(s) re-digestion. Let the writer spend a day or two at the restaurant - talking with the chef, the owner, the maitre d', servers, cooks, apprentices and more. Get a feel for the capabilities of the kitchen - everything from imagination to craft to sanitation. Eat a few meals in the dining room. Perhaps talk with a few diners on their way out. Who will better predict a diner's experience? Someone who has eaten two or three maybe anonymous meals at a place or someone known to be a reviewer who has eaten two or three meals and spent a day or more watching prep, turnout and service, and talking with the staff?

Even though the beaten horse is still dead... As Rumpole of the Old Bailey used to urge juries, "Use your good old (insert nationality here) common sense." Any writer with a bit of savvy can distinguish between a comp intended to encourage an article and a comp for other reasons such as a botched meal or a friendly gesture. This is especially the case when the comp is offered to the writer to cover the cost of the reviewing meal or in the hopes that the writer will write about a restaurant. Edited to add a trailing quotation mark.

Will eGullet maintain a public list of those subscribing to the code?

Agree. I stopped going to what was before one of my favorite burger joints when they added such a policy.

A sad day for Cheez Whiz.

Who would guess that one could plan a trip to New Orleans just to sample Snowballs. Thanks Todd for another excuse for an eating trip. Great write-up. So much of New Orleans food is all about tradition. Edited to ask does James Carville slurp a snowball human-like or does his tongue dart out whenever a snowball comes within range?

There are lots of ways to operate an ethical website. A website that doesn't allow for user comments, however, might have trouble satisfying the fair-comment provision of the eG Ethics code. ← Declaring comps or not accepting comps and citing/crediting sources are obvious ethical concerns. I do not see how fair comment is an ethical matter.

Consider Trio which paved the way for Alinea

There are food and restaurant websites that are one-way - no option for reader comment except by email. In fact HollyEats gave up its struggling discussion forum as part of the founding of eGullet as eGullet initially was intended to serve as the discussion forum for several food and restaurant websites. Does eGullet consider the requirement for reader comments essential to operating an ethical website?

Nothing is easy with me I don't get from the code that a blogger is required to answer any questions concerning specific claims or events.

Is the blogger expected to state "I have no relationship" as part of any favorable write-up? Whose questions does the code require the blogger to answer? Are you suggesting that these acts are required in the code or more a matter of good PR?

But Holly, in a way that's my point. I'm not a restaurant reviewer. Chris isn't a restaurant reviewer. We're customers who more-than-occassionally post review-like write-ups on the internet. Which I suppose gets us back to your contention that the same rules shouldn't apply to bloggers and posters. I agree in principle, but am afraid that the distinction isn't as clear-cut as all that. ← I agree re clear-cut. Some bloggers and posters blog and post as a hobby - for fun, to share experiences the same as they would do sitting around a living room. Others see it as entry-level reviewing - an opportunity to develop a style and be noticed - to amass a portfolio to become a reviewer or to achieve reviewer credibility for their blog. Both should post ethically as their posts can influence a restaurant's success or lack thereof. But those who hope to move out of the living room and into reviewing need to consider such issues as accepting comps. That said, I don't know why people want to do serious reviews anyway. A review is tedious to write - pretty much a formula. And there is such a dirth of synonyms for tasty. Restaurant writing, other than reviews, is far more stimulating and, in the end, can provide the reader a better feel for a restaurant's potential and capabilities.

Consider it well-honed, restaurant reviewer paranoia - like a cop walking into a dark alley. Assume the worst and be pleasantly surprised when you're wrong.

That can't be the standard because the customer/writer can't be charged with being a mindreader. ← An experienced restaurant reviewer bats close to 1000 in recognizing special treatment above and beyond. It is not all that hard. Look at those around you. How are they being treated compared to the treatment you're receiving.

That's easy. If you are a writer and are known at the establishment assume it is a motivated comp unless you see others at the bar getting the same treatment. Were salted nuts one of your examples? Actually they are complimentary in they are provided for free. But common sense would lead me to believe they were not a comp intended to influence. In fact I would be highly insulted if they assumed I could be bought for mere peanuts.