Miami Danny

Does the definition of a word somehow not apply to journalists?

A credential is an attestation of qualification, competence, or authority issued to an individual by a third party with a relevant de jure or de facto authority or assumed competence to do so. Whether or not the 'credential' has any value is certainly open to discussion, but what a credential is , is less so.

I think the choice here may actually be between disingenuousness and delusion. Every single post of yours that's on this website is exactly as you posted it, without a word changed by anyone but you. The claim that we've made such changes is false. But still, you're being allowed to make the claim -- something you'd never be allowed to do by a print publication, which would just toss all such unsubstantiated conspiracy theories in the garbage never to see the light of day. Yes, you've had (a minuscule number of) posts removed over the years, all for good reason, all painstakingly explained to you, and never because you made an argument someone disagreed with. As I already said, websites do and should remove posts that violate their rules or the law. But you've never had your words edited. Nobody here is hiding from your arguments, false though they may be, as this exchange again demonstrates. ← First, please let me say unequivocally that I never claimed anyone here edited my posts, other than deleting them , which is pretty much editing down to nothing, which, as I stated, I don't have a problem with , and sometimes even appreciate, just like when my print editor edits me, or decides not to run one of my columns. Your argument is not with me, but with the fact that many blogs and boards DO edit or delete (not publish) comments, at their discretion (or whim), which is exactly what I posted, and which you chose not to address. The idea that print publications are the big bad wolf and that web-based journalism is somehow more pure is an argument anyone can care to make. That, however, was not my argument.

Your post demonstrates the fallacy of your argument: you've just had your chance to hold me accountable. You happen to be wrong, you happen not to have made a persuasive argument, but you've had your say. Did anybody edit your post? Of course not. Meanwhile, I've had many letters to the editor published in newspapers, including the New York Times. Every single one of them has been edited. I've never heard of a letter to the editor being published in a newspaper without some edits. In many cases I've felt that the edits made to my letters have weakened them substantially. So, first of all, newspapers have just as much editing ability as websites and, second, newspapers routinely exercise that editing ability whereas in my experience -- which is extensive -- websites rarely do. Most websites simply do not edit posts or blog comments for content. They may delete ones that are beyond the pale -- as they should -- but they don't go in and change content the way newspapers almost always do. ← You are saying that because ONE post in this topic right now was unedited that therefore NO posts have ever been edited or deleted on this OR ANY board? I had a very mild post deleted just the other day-but how would anyone, other than a moderator or host even know? You are simply taking advantage of the fact that many people do not know or care how boards work, and how 'comment moderation' works. I too have had letters to the editor published in the Times, and they were edited, as are my comments here, sometimes for the better, quite frankly. Perhaps the same goes for you. "To pretend otherwise is either ignorance or disingenuousness." Are you pleading ignorance?

This is absolute nonsense. Online writers are accountable to NO ONE. That is why there are so many of them (and so many bad ones). Also, EVERY blogger (including me) can modify comments, and so can EVERY food board (including this one). To pretend otherwise is either ignorance or disingenuousness. As to 'strong and true', let me pose a question. How many readers does, for example, the NY Times have? Read their circulation numbers for a good estimate. Even their online readership is readily available. How many readers read JoeBlowFoodie.com? Good luck. I could write a thousand word blog every day that not one person reads other than my mother, and it would never go away.

Also there is the issue of markets-being a print critic in NYC or other large city may carry a lot more weight/responsibilty than one in a smaller market, such as Miami (where I live), or some even smaller, more provincial town. Of course you are also bringing up the wisdom of editors and the sanctity of their decisions, both of which may be called into question (although not mine, of course, nor yours-I mean someone else's). I think standards have been relaxed substantially, even at the NY Times.

Of course it is in the personal interests of print critics to bash those online-they are making it harder for them to make a living. The self-appointed's are also often unedited and self-directed as well, which means they may be writing solely about issues they really care about, as opposed to stuff the editor(s) wants. Also it seems that many print critics, given their own 'blogs', seem to just write print-y stuff on them, so maybe they can't really compete with the real bloggers, and they're bitter. It also seems that with the NY Times, for example, I may read the theater, home, sports, etc., sections, but I don't look online for any of that information. Perhaps the same could be said for the print food section. So the really devoted 'food people' are the ones reading food blogs/boards online, not everybody who might pick up a paper.

I love restaurants that 'hide in plain sight'. Places that you may pass but not really notice for one reason or another. Maybe the storefront is hidden, or the street is grubby, or the neighborhood's questionable, etc., etc. Mi Rinconcito is on Calle Ocho in Little Havana, and the entrance is so non-descript that even though I've eaten here dozens of times, I still drove right by last Sunday and had to go around the block again. It is authentic, the owner is from Hidalgo, and if you order even a simple, common item like chicken quesadillas, they will surprise you. Corn tortillas folded over freshly chopped and cooked chicken, and enough melted cheese but not so much you're drowning in it. The corn tortilla is crisp, and the beans on the side are light-there is enough pico de gallo and guacamole to condimentize, but I like to eat them on separate forkfuls, the better to enjoy their fresh zip. And cold Tecate in cans:Mi Rinconcito There is a great picture of their menudo, and if you go to the Sun Post homepage, there is another great picture of their pozole with what I think is a foot.

It could mean that Drew thinks Zagat is a shill for the restaurant industry as a whole, or perhaps a shill for some specific restaurants. Either way, 'shill' is a pretty strong description. shill /ʃɪl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[shil] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation Slang. –noun 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc. 2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty. –verb (used without object) 3. to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino. –verb (used with object) 4. to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1920–25; orig. uncert.]

Well, maybe you're right about the tooth fairy, but I can tell you right now, you're only getting three cents more than you did last year.

Worth looking at, yes. Fun to talk about, definitely. Reliable or believable? Open to debate. This is not a specific numerical challenge or two. I believe all of their data is tainted. If one uses their guides simply as informational, most of this doesn't matter. We accept the fact that these guides are just fun items for our amusement. However, if one relies on their conclusions, based on their faulty data, to assess trends or adjust marketing, etc., that's like putting your tooth under the pillow at night, and, when it's gone in the morning, replaced by a dollar bill, believing, because there is no contradicting evidence, that teeth become dollars overnight when placed under your pillow. Or that there is a tooth fairy.

Additionally, one can not conclude from their unreliable data, that their unreliable data is unreliable in the same way, every year, therefore at least it is reliable in its own set. If they can be off-base one year, they are not going to be off-base in the same exact way every year. So the year-to-year data is also highly suspect. Their 'sample' group is also not a scientific sample, therefore it, too, could change dramatically from year to year, also skewing the numbers, great and small. And I think everyone cares what the average meal cost is, and my contention is that the Zagats are not providing that number reliably, consistently, or scientifically.

It might be a leap, albeit perhaps not an absurd one, to say that three or four restaurants have their statistics massaged, therefore everything the Zagats ever do is suspect. But it is not an absurd leap, nor even a hop, skip, and a jump, to examine the well-known fact that ALL of the statistics are revised and interpreted, in secret, by the Zagats themselves, and then come to the conclusion that the Zagats have no real, empirical data. All of the so-called statistics (which are, as we have seen, spottily, if at all, fact-checked), in Zagat's guides are revised and remade by the editors and the Zagat's themselves at their whim. The fact that they may be the only ones publishing this so-called data, does not mean that it is therefore irrefutable. And no one needs to prove that the Zagats have any 'motive' to 'fudge' figures. That is irrelevant to this discussion. I am in no way impugning their integrity; but simply stating that their figures, based on what we know, and what they have admitted, are unscientific and unreliable. Are they the best at what they do? Also irrelevant. And if they are the most reliable, it is only because we seem to be examining a set of one.

I was using the example of statistical massaging (a well-documented fact), and the listing of restaurants that have never been rated by actual surveyors (other than, say, one hand-picked editor), as part of my contention that the Zagat's methods are far from scientific, and therefore, suspect. To quote a figure from them as though it were a proven fact is misleading to say the least. The 'basic cost average figure' we're discussing here, has no basis in reliable, proven, numbers. They have already admitted that some of their figures are outdated-in fact they claim that some figures were not updated since April-so why give them any credibilty at all? Until I see raw, scientifically gathered evidence, all of their numbers are questionable. I'm not saying they don't make for a good bedtime read, but so does Nobel Prize-winning author Doris Lessing's The Golden Notebook, and they are both pretty much fiction.

"I don't think the methodology here is complex or mysterious. The Zagats are taking the self-reported data from their survey participants and generating an average meal price." My post does not say 'mysterious or complex-it says 'suspect'. I think it would be correct to say, as I actually stated in my previous post, that the Zagat's claim to be taking the 'self-reported data', etc, etc. They do not release any data, there are no raw numbers out there at all. In fact, it is widely known that editors all over the country add and subtract restaurants at the Zagat's behest, or some might say, whim. That is, restaurants that never make the grade, or perhaps are not even mentioned (!) by the so-called 'survey participants'. To say that this is not mysterious or complex, does not alter the fact that it is, in fact, suspect , as I said, and calls into question their conclusions. Whether they are pro- or anti-industry is irelevant. Their dog in this hunt is the Zagats. Period.

So in the end we all seem to be agreeing that restaurant prices have gone up substantially, but that the average 'price of a meal' has not. This does not seem to be possible, without either patrons ordering less food at the same restaurants, or patrons eating a significant number of extremely low-priced meals at the so-called 'slew of inexpensive newcomers' whose prices are significantly lower than last year's slew of inexpensive newcomers. How else to explain an annual rise of near-insignificance for the past five or six years? Are the Zagat's saying that every single year , prices go up a lot at some restaurants, but the 'average' price barely moves because a 'slew' of cheap new places open to offset the older places whose prices are jumping so high? That's got to be a pretty big slew , ladies and gentleman. And I'm not an expert here, but don't a fairly large number (perhaps not large enough to be called a 'slew') of expensive restaurants also open every year? Or is it, say, eight expensive new spots, and a thousand cheapo burrito joints? (There are 50 Chipotle's in NYC-are THEY part of the 'slew'?) The whole thing smells. I'm not saying, and I don't think anyone is (I could be wrong), that there is reason to challenge the Zagat's integrity. Their methodolgy, however, is quite suspect. Until one knows exactly how they reached their conclusions (and most of this info is proprietary), I can't see how one can take their findings seriously.

I filled out the survey for South Florida, and I also subscribe to the Zagat's online service, which I find very useful. I think the survey is a great opportunity to promote your friends in the industry, and slam their rivals. Also a great place to try and insert snarky comments about places you hate. When I see a 'Zagat Rated' decal on a restaurant door, it reminds me of McDonald's promoting their beef as 'USDA Inspected'. It doesn't mean it's a sign of quality, just the bare minimum to get by. I don't think you can take it too seriously, but, unfortunately, there aren't a lot of alternatives. And I rated at least 30 places in Miami this year. And as an aside, living in Florida, eGulleteers sounds scarily close to Mouseketeers

Nathan, do you have any links to those articles? I'd like to check them out. ← here's one: http://www.nypost.com/seven/10112006/enter...teve_cuozzo.htm and he generally slams Zagat here: http://www.nypost.com/seven/10102007/news/...books__stuf.htm ← I'm sorry-if Cuozzo's all you got, I don't think that counts as 'roundly pilloried'.

Whatever the actual rise in prices may be, it still seems to be pretty low. But in any event, other than the Zagat's, what supposedly scientific evidence is there to refute them? And I think that even if you take the Zagat's evidence as anecdotal and not scientific, that's still a helluva lot of anecdotal evidence.

Thank you to everyone who responded with your guesses. I suppose it was too easy! I finally caught up with the cook. On the left is sticky rice covered in mango custard, and the right is also sticky rice made gelatinous with the yellow center of mung beans. These were both made by a Thai lady, who was not sure if their origin is Thai, but who told me that the name of the dessert on the right is pronounced Ka-NOME, which means...dessert!

Sunny-Side-Ups!

Have to agree that Beaujolais is a steal right now. Of course the Times adds to the confusion and misunderstandings about nouveau/not nouveau by writing about beaujolais right before the nouveau is released! A 2005 Brouilly ($13) I opened the other day is still fragrant (violets and strawberries-really), and tastes nice a little chilled as an aperitif. I definitely recommend cold storage, though. For some reason, maybe the ones cited in the Times, a little warmth will kill it.

I couldn't figure out what these were. The one on the left is sticky rice, came with a small container of a thin, white, kind of sweet, sauce. The yellow topping is smooth, a little fruity, and slightly sweet. The one on the right seemed to have some bean/taro root component, and the bottom wrapper/shell seemed to be some kind of leaf. Any help is greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Mitch. I guess the good thing about volunteering is it keeps you sober for a couple of hours (?). Although street-eating is still in its infancy in Miami, I've managed to unearth some great tacos, Filipino food, and, of course, ribs. There is also a legendary fried shrimp truck here. Of course, nothing on the scale of New York. As far as the price of admission, the money goes to a good cause, which is defending and helping street-sellers on various issues. And it's a lot cheaper than your average celebrity-chef-fest! How many people would you say attended this year?

Which store are you near? The Miami Shores does it once a week-I've never had it though. And it looks like they do the same thing you do-I always see big hunks of pork in their 'fried rice'