Holly Moore

They are all comps in that they were provided for free. It depends on motive - whether it was offered to you as a customer in the course of building good will or whether it was offered to you as a writer in the hope of garnering a few review brownie points or luring you to a place you would otherwise not write-up.

Thanks for the reminder. Time to put together my summer order for Usinger wieners and fresh brats. If anyone local to Philadelphia wants to add on, let me know. Here is the Usinger's Web Site

That the subject has been discussed elsewhere strikes me as irrelevant as it was not discussed within the context of a code of website ethics bearing the society's marque. All the same, I probably realized I was tilting at windmills.

Yes, I agree that comps should be declared. I also suggest that if there is a comp, the declaration should make it clear that the meal was comped rather than simply implied. I would like to see the phrase further strengthened to say that a blogger or web site publisher that sees himself as an independent journalist offering what he intends to be a legitimate restaurant review should not accept comps. While some blogs and websites are hobbies, others are intended as "new journalism" and should act with journalistic ethics.

Some do, some don't. I have no sense of preponderance either way.

The places I write about don't accept reservations. I was thinking about your question re HollyEats before you posed it. True I rarely visit a place twice before writing about it. That is hard to do when driving across a state. Alas, over the years my capacity has diminished so I no longer eat my way through the menu. And it is hard to be anonymous when I'm walking around a counter area snapping flash pictures. My cop-out is that I see myself more as relating an experience rather than reviewing a place. Yet I do cast judgment with the awarding of my highly coveted grease stains. So maybe they are reviews, though good natured reviews intended more for enjoyment than contemplation. Though I am serious about the effort I put into HollyEats and I want people to try the places I recommend, I don't consider my write-ups to be serious reviews like the ones I did writing ny column for the City Paper. eGullet-wise, I guess a post about a restaurant meal becomes a review when it offers a judgment. And you are correct that within the eGullet discussion format some of the principles of the Food Critic's code need not apply. Perhaps the difficulty is attempting to compose a code of conduct that can apply both to eGullet posts and websites/blogs. --- Edited to add that, as Steven posted, this code is not intended for individual posts. Ignore, at least, my last paragraph.

Beyond that I believe that one writing a serious review does have an ethical obligation not to accept a comp. If one does not present his writing as a review then I do not have a problem with accepting a comp. What does that have to do with the larger universe of food bloggers and forum participants then? Wouldn't these considerations of yours be better addressed with a "Food Reviewer's Code of Ethics"? And doesn't something like that already exist? Here, in the Association of Food Journalists' Critic's Guidelines? Meanwhile, who is to say what is and what is not a "review"? Is this a review? How about this? This? ← It depends on the tone of the blog, but many blogs are being accepted as a form of journalism. I have also seen blogging described as entry-level journalism or everyman's journalism. Respected newspapers and news media accept and present blogs. The delineation between some blogging and journalism is blurred. I would be happy if eGullet accepted the Food Critics' guidelines you linked to for anyone posting a review on eGullet.

Sam, from an earlier post by Steven: You are correct in that I was assuming a code of ethics to also be a code of conduct. I do not see the difference in terms of accepting value in return for writing. To me such conduct is unethical. Out of curiosity, would it be ethical for a restaurant to pay a reviewer $200 to review the restaurant?

Here's a question, based on some of your previous opinions on this matter: Do you believe that this is a matter of ethical obligation or is it because you feel that someone who writes about food on the internet "won't be taken seriously by mainstream media" if he accepts comps? I am rather inclined to agree with Chris that ethics and credibility are separate issues. Also, I'm curious as to your thoughts about which and what kind of blogs or internet writers you're talking about. Don't you think there is a reasonable difference between, say, a writer at The Feedbag or Serious Eats New York (never mind someone like Mark Bittman) writing about a comped meal, and more personal food bloggers such as, say, John Sconzo or Mitch Weinstein writing about a comped meal? And how about a more serious "reviewer" amateur such as Marc Shepherd? I can understand that Marc might feel an increased need to avoid comps compared to John and Mitch, for whom I think there is no obligation whatsoever. Or, perhaps more interestingly, what if Alex and Aki or Shola write about a free meal they got from a colleague? Shouldn't be able to do that? Why not? Meanwhile, I'm not sure it makes sense to differentiate between all bloggers and all forum participants. Certainly there are plenty posts in these forums which are every bit as detailed, personal and thought out as any blog post. ← As I said in an earlier post to this thread: Beyond that I believe that one writing a serious review does have an ethical obligation not to accept a comp. If one does not present his writing as a review then I do not have a problem with accepting a comp.

If a reviewer is considered unethical he can not have credibility. Accepting a comp for a meal that is then reviewed casts both an ethical and credibility shadow over that review no matter how good/fair the intentions of the writer. For one thing, accepting a prearranged comp generally means that the restaurant will know the reviewer's table at the start of the meal. If the reviewer knows that the restaurant knows his table then he should be sufficiently savvy to know that the restaurant will give him VIP treatment. How can that reviewer then write with credibility about the meal? And if the reviewer knows that his meal received TLC, how can the reviewer ethically present that meal as representative of the restaurant? Edited to apply 6th grade grammar rules overlooked in the original post.

Actually this set of ethics is for websites ie bloggers and such. Steven's first post says that there will be a similar set of ethics developed for posters. Fessing up to receiving a comp is better than not fessing up. But there is no way to be sure that a comp did not influence a blogger's judgment. My concern here is with bloggers who write reviews and want their reviews to have credibility.

As I have stated elsewhere, I do not believe a code of ethics should permit a food writer to accept comps.

Good servers in high check or high sales restaurants surely can earn a decent living. Professional servers do just that. There are more professional servers than you may think. There are also many servers who, although treading water until graduation or their first big performing break, are self-actualizing and take pride in being professional servers. To liken either group to "prostitutes" or "call girls" is indeed both demeaning and uninformed. Are there statistics that support this statement? There are some servers who go into the job knowing they are so above waiting that they try to let every table know that they are actors or college students --- that while circumstances force them to take such a lowly position, it is only temporary. Their tide will soon turn and no longer will they need to debase themselves by waiting on others. Fortunately they don't last long in a service-oriented restaurant.

Your statement is very demeaning to those servers who enjoy waiting tables and do so professionally.

I can easily change bars for a more comfy stool - you will still be strutting Broad Street struggling not to end up air born. Maybe a beer or two consumed before the parade will add the ballast needed to fight off the wind, though soaring Mummers would be a memorable sight.

Burger is good, but agree with Andy on the bun. Whole thing is a tad too tall. But my major compliant is their bar stools. Had to have been built by a very short carpenter. The rail for resting one's feet is way too high, especially if one is 6'3".

It has probably always been asked to some tables by some servers but I don't remember it as a mandatory policy in the 80's and know it was never an expectation in my restaurant in the early 80s. I figure it had to be some corporate type at one of the chain restaurants that included it as part of the server training manual. I'm just guessing but it strikes me as something TGIFridays would come up with.

This is a case, like bussing one's tables at a McDonald's, where restaurants, over the past decade or two, have trained servers to verbally check with diners during their meal. Touchy, feely progress. Customers expect it now because restaurants have trained them to expect it. Pity the poor server, already in the weeds. who pauses to ask "how is everything" and receives an honest answer instead of "fine, go away." Deeper and deeper into the weeds the server goes as he/she now has to deal with a table's issues above and beyond. Sometimes it is better not to know and figure on at least a 15% tip no matter what. Customers will flag or chase the server down if the problem is sufficiently severe. Then there are the customers who, on many/most occasions choose to lie - "Everything is fine, thank you" - when the burger is overcooked or a salad is not quite fresh but they would rather eat and suffer in peace than wait for another burger to be cooked or get into a discussion on a minor issue. I get that question maybe 80 percent of the times when I am at a sit-down restaurant. I don't think the question has ever led to me being more satisfied with a dining experience. I am able to get a server's attention when needed - almost always without having to call the restaurant on my cell phone and ask for my server.

Why must the server ask anything at that point in the meal? Further, why do servers consistently wait until one's mouth is full to ask "the question?"

There is also the elote senora across the parking lot from Taqueria la Veracruzana.

... But outside of that top percent of a percent of restaurants, the "How is everything?" question and variants are probably appropriate. I just prefer not to be subject to some of the more tortured variants. ← I hate that question with every ounce of my being. If I am choking and possibly in need of the Heimlich maneuver, the question is permissible though I will not be able to respond if food is lodged in my throat. If I have shoved the plate away and am calling out for a pizza delivery, feel free to ask. Any other occasion is merely a rude interruption. There are many ways for a server to observe and present an opportunity for customer comment without actually speaking. Refill the water or coffee. Freshen the bread. Walk by the table and glance at the people as opposed to doing everything possible to avoid eye contact. Between courses, servers, like children, should be seen and not heard.

I put Fuddruckers more in the Chili's category than fast food. I have a hard time thinking of fast food restaurants being other than a chain. Independent hamburger restaurants typically have soul. Fast food hamburger restaurants are mindless factories.

I wrote a column about how much I hated the question, "How is everything." I maintained that a savvy server should be able to cue off eye contact and need never ask. A few days later, at Jack's Firehouse in Philadelphia, my favorite waiter made a point of staring me in the eye until I yelled uncle.

As someone who has been involved both in the fast food industry (McD, BK, DDA) and the application of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (or at least the funding thereof through a business where I am a principal - Team Delta), I suggest that my heretofore stated opinions should be accepted without further discussion.