smokinjoe

Please Jaysus, yes. I mean I've got to get on with starting the work on the 2008 list this afternoon.

No wonder it's so hard to get a table at elBulli! ← This is an interesting point. In 18 months el Bulli is open for a maximum of 12 months, but depending on when the voting takes place, this could be closer to nine. Added to this, there is only one service daily, 5 days a week, and the place seats something like a maximum of 50. 250 covers x 36 weeks = 9000 covers. If only half of the voters placed el Bulli on their lists somewhere then nearly 4% of el Bulli's customers in the past 18 months, or two at every service, were panelists on Restaurant Magazine's juries. Sounds reasonable, not. ← lol. precisely. when you start looking below the superficial exterior, there is plenty that does not make sense. ← You are missing the point again and not for the first time in your life... To save you having to actually scroll and read earlier posts here's the answer I gave Cortina.... "Although they might not post on egullet, these people do exist and a sizeable number of them voted for el Bulli this year and last year. Just because you can't get a table it doesn't mean that through the networking of our international judging panel we don't know a large number of people that voted this year that ate there in the last 18 months. On the subject of which the whole idea that it's completely impossible to get a table at el Bulli is completely exaggerated. There's some common sense tips in the current issue of restaurant magazine (though I'm sure you wouldn't dirty your hands with actually reading it) on how you can get yourself a table if you really, really want one. It involves manners and patience and the price of an easyjet flight..."

No wonder it's so hard to get a table at elBulli! ← This is an interesting point. In 18 months el Bulli is open for a maximum of 12 months, but depending on when the voting takes place, this could be closer to nine. Added to this, there is only one service daily, 5 days a week, and the place seats something like a maximum of 50. 250 covers x 36 weeks = 9000 covers. If only half of the voters placed el Bulli on their lists somewhere then nearly 4% of el Bulli's customers in the past 18 months, or two at every service, were panelists on Restaurant Magazine's juries. Sounds reasonable, not. ← Yawn. ← So, if elBulli isn't No 1 next year, will it be because the panelists didn't get a booking or because they've found somewhere better? ← If el Bulli isn't no.1 next year it will because the panellists will have voted more often for somewhere else. Believe it or not there are a hell of a lot of people on the panel that eat at el Bulli every year either because they are well-connected restaurants journalists, restaurateurs, chefs or customers. Although they might not post on egullet, these people do exist and a sizeable number of them voted for el Bulli this year and last year. Just because you can't get a table it doesn't mean that through the networking of our international judging panel we don't know a large number of people that voted this year that ate there in the last 18 months. On the subject of which the whole idea that it's completely impossible to get a table at el Bulli is completely exaggerated. There's some common sense tips in the current issue of restaurant magazine (though I'm sure you wouldn't dirty your hands with actually reading it) on how you can get yourself a table if you really, really want one. It involves manners and patience and the price of an easyjet flight...

No wonder it's so hard to get a table at elBulli! ← This is an interesting point. In 18 months el Bulli is open for a maximum of 12 months, but depending on when the voting takes place, this could be closer to nine. Added to this, there is only one service daily, 5 days a week, and the place seats something like a maximum of 50. 250 covers x 36 weeks = 9000 covers. If only half of the voters placed el Bulli on their lists somewhere then nearly 4% of el Bulli's customers in the past 18 months, or two at every service, were panelists on Restaurant Magazine's juries. Sounds reasonable, not. ← Yawn.

Like I said before

OK Joe, that is fair enough explanation. I agree that 'dishonest' is a bridge too far. One question though, and it might be explained earlier, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it: exactly what is format of the voting process. for example, is "just give me your top 5." or is "give me your choices (max 5 say) in these categories". I wonder, because I am sure you're a little confused by some of the outcomes as well. If you weren't changes wouldn't have been necessary for this year! that said, it doesn't do anyone any good when they are some plainly stoopid outcomes. Sure, I agree you should not even think of manipulating the outcomes, but being on the edge of incredulous disbelief is not the name of the game either. My question therefore focus's on this: are people arm twisted a little (format wise) to vote in categories that they do not have a good knowledge on? if not, then there are some credentials that need revoking! ← As laid out on the website and in the magazine....1.Voters are only allowed to vote for a maximum of two restaurants in their own voting panel region - they may of course decide to vote for none. 2. Voters must have visited the restaurant in the last 18 months No other conditions. ←

OK Joe, that is fair enough explanation. I agree that 'dishonest' is a bridge too far. One question though, and it might be explained earlier, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it: exactly what is format of the voting process. for example, is "just give me your top 5." or is "give me your choices (max 5 say) in these categories". I wonder, because I am sure you're a little confused by some of the outcomes as well. If you weren't changes wouldn't have been necessary for this year! that said, it doesn't do anyone any good when they are some plainly stoopid outcomes. Sure, I agree you should not even think of manipulating the outcomes, but being on the edge of incredulous disbelief is not the name of the game either. My question therefore focus's on this: are people arm twisted a little (format wise) to vote in categories that they do not have a good knowledge on? if not, then there are some credentials that need revoking! ← As laid out on the website and in the magazine....1.Voters are only allowed to vote for two restaurants in their own voting panel region 2. Voters must have visited the restaurant in the last 18 months No other conditions.

I'm not arguing with any of you because as I said about two pages back that way madness lies. I'd just like to reiterate that the list was fairly and transparently compiled in response to one of your fellow members who earlier - talking out their ignorant and no doubt well-fed arse - basically said there was something dishonest about the way the whole thing was put together. A full list of voters for all of the region panels and details of the process is on the website www.theworlds50best.com. Let's face if we were making the whole thing up we would have had some real Japanese restaurants in there and a different top 5 for a start... A lot of people work very hard trying to make this thing better and more representative every year so please forgive me for getting defensive. We are working to improve the process and hopefully hence the diversity of the list every year and if any of you have any sensible suggestions for how we can do that that we're not already looking into - I'm all ears. That some of you don't like the River Cafe or Nobu or Hakkasan is completely irrelevant in terms of the list because a sizeable majority of the 651 chefs, restaurateurs and critics that were part of the process this year do. Restaurants get on the list by being voted there pure and simple. There is no mystery. There is no conspiracy. Until next year, Joe Warwick, Editor, Restaurant magazine.

Are you suggesting that some egullet members are patronising elitist restaurant snobs? Are you insane pickle? ← In compiling a list of the world's best restaurants, a little bit of elitism would not have gone astray... ← And actually doing a bit of research into how the awards are judged before posting unfounded bitchy comments as per your earlier post might not go amiss...

An excellent panel it must be said. And they came up with Nobu as the best restaurant in London? Really?!? This just seems completely beyond my comprehension. ← Erm no.... their votes along with the votes of the other 21 voting panels put Nobu where it is... that's how the academy of voters works... I thought that was clear from the explantion on the website and my earlier posts. Apologies if it wasn't.

Are you suggesting that some egullet members are patronising elitist restaurant snobs? Are you insane pickle?

Amen...Paul Bocuse, past lifetime achievement award winner, is described thus: "Having put their fraternal bond to the ultimate test for four decades and come through with flying colours, the Roux brothers, Albert and Michel, can truly claim to be lifetime achievers..." I love lists. Can't wait to read the blurb for each place. Noma has flown straight into my radar. ← This incorrectly posted copy has now been corrected and the person responsible shot by firing squad.

sounds like they need moorfield media to sort it out ← Yeah don't know how we've somehow got by without Thom's input these last four years...

I don't see this as a good thing Jon. A sloppily put together and , frankly, disingenuous, list like this getting so much mainstream coverage is not a postive thing. The average punter will read this list like this and accept it as gospel (or at least a well researched attempt at an admittedly subjective target). This annual travesty merely spreads misconceptions and lazily held untruths. Every year year well-informed members of this and other food fora point outs the list's many deficencies (which go rather far beyond subjective differences of opinion...) At this stage, I'd love to just ignore it but thats impossible given the coverage it gets. Egon Ronay's letter in today's Telegraph covers it quite nicely: ← It's a survey. A survey of experts worldwide the names of whom are on the website and there is total transparency in the way it's compiled and it does not involve us claiming that anyone on the panel has eaten in all of the restaurants in the world or even all of the restaurants in the list... it doesn't work like that. That Egon Ronay can't get his head around the concept is no great surprise, a great man but he's hardly got his finger on the pulse these days as for the Torygraph... The list started as a throw away magazine feature and by accident rather than by design became really important to a lot of people. For that reason, as of last year, we introduced a very involved, democratic, fully international voting process that takes a lot of time and hard work by an academy of 22 different voting regions and - this year - 651 panelists around the world. No one - myself included - is claiming that the list is perfect but every year we're working very hard to make it better and more representative. This year we introduced two new voting regions in Asia to address the lack of Japanese restaurants and - as that didn't work - we are going to continue to look at that particular issue and many others that were raised by the meeting we had on Sunday night with all of the regional chairmen and women that were over for the awards. To say that the list is sloppily put together, disingenuous and a travesty is frankly ignorant and an insult to all the people that work very hard on putting it together every year. You, I'm afraid, are the one responsible for spreading misconceptions and lazily held untruths. Joe Warwick, Editor, Restaurant Magazine.