rich

There's an assumption here that reviews start at four stars and lose them for faults. I rather doubt Bruni made any deductions and as Oakapple has so well pointed out, he left no doubt that the food, let alone any other part of the restaurant, did not approach four stars in his opinion. My sense from reading Bruni's review is also quite similar to Oakapple's in that Bruni seems to be saying that Sri gets bonus points for being the best of it's type. Rich continues to offer a peculiarly personal view of what four stars means and decides to ignore the definitions offered by those who speak the language and understand the system. For that reason the discussion is tiresome. It's much like witnessing a discussion between an American who insists that "rouge" means green and carries on a discussion about traffic lights in French with Frenchmen.I don't know that an honest discussion can begin from a point in which someone gets to vote on what Bruni would have awarded a restaurant under some hypothetical conditions, but if there was, we still have no basis for assuming Bruni "deducted" one star from Babbo for anything. Quite simply, we can assume nothing other than that Babbo didn't live up to four stars in Bruni's mind. Every other assumption has to be made on individual faith and not on the words of Bruni's review. Rich hang's on a literal interpretation of a few words whose meaning changes with the context of the sentence and paragraph around them. This is where context is everything and relativity is important. ← Actually, I think the problem lies more in the way Bruni chooses to write his reviews and award stars. My position has been quite clear from the beginning. I am against the star system as it currently exists in the NY Times (even before Bruni, though I think he's made my argument more compelling.) I believe restaurants can serve four-star food, yet not be a four star restaurant (by common standards) - that's why separate categories are so important. I've also stated that fast-food type restaurants cannot achieve four stars; that the cuisine must be "serious" (for lack of a better word), of which Thai is certainly one. That's simple and straightforward. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend, unless reading and accurately reporting is a problem. And to equate my position with rouge and traffic lights is not only disengenous but sophomoric. I believe Sri serves four-star type food (because I have never tasted better Thai) but is not a four-star retaurant, nor did I think it should have been reviewed in the primary category. I really don't undertand what's so hard to understand. As I wrote earlier and hopefully won't need to do it again, if the categoies of food/service/ambiance were separate, I would rate Sri 4-0-0.

Once you say "within the genre of Thai cuisine," you no longer have "a" four-star sytem. You have dozens or hundreds. Based on Bruni's reviews, I think we already have hundreds.

Just a few comments. You're correct in noting that I'm the only one saying that Sri deserves four stars for food. Yet, most other comments (and I'm taking the liberty of paraphrasing here) say it's the best Thai they have ever had or it's the best Thai in the country or it's the best Thai in NYC. I think those type of comments at the very least imply four-star quality within the genre of Thai cuisine. Regarding the description of how Bruni may award stars based on expectation, I tend to agree, but that simply throws the system, as quasi-defined by the NY Times, completely "out of whack." As an example. with the exception of some entrees, Bruni absolutely gushes about Tempo this week and yet awards it one star. If someone were to read that review without a star rating attached, I think one would believe it was higher than a one. So was Bruni expecting more from the place or less? While I thought this was one of his better reviews, I was confused about the one-star.

I went there when it was Cucina and it still has the same chef. I thought it was okay then, probably the same now. However, by last count, I could think of 753 Italian restaurants in NYC that I would review before I got around to Tempo/Cucina. Two that he should have chosen prior to Tempo (and in the same genre) are: Parkside and Sapori D'Ischia.

I fail to see how it's a disservice to the restaurant. They are no doubt delighted. ← OA - In my opinion it's a disservice to the restaurant because a significant number of people will have the the wrong idea of the restaurant before they go. Sri can never live up to the common opinion (by NY Times readers) of a two-star restaurant. While those people won't be disappointed in the food, they will certainly be disappointed in the other aspects of what is normally found in a two-star restaurant. Thus, those individuals may come away with a negative feeling about Sri because they were expecting something else and because of that, the restaurant suffers from unwarranted criticism. But I have question. What rating do you think Bruni would have given Sri if the place had "top-shelf" ambiance/decor and service? My vote would be four based on this argument: If Bruni deducted one star from Babbo because of ambiance problems, then he must have deducted two from Sri. I think it's logical to conclude that Babbo's ambiance is at least one-star better than Sri's.

← Every restaurant is "reviewable" but within specific categories. The Times has $25 category. Others could be fast food, self service, paper napkins, no wine list etc. I feel to be fair to the restaurant and the public, each restaurant sould be reviewed vs. others within its own category. Granted sometimes the lines are vague, but most of time it's fairly obvious.

I understand your point and that's why Sri shouldn't have been reviewed in the primary category based on the current standards. But I think the genre should be between fast food and the like and serious cuisines of which Thai is one. If you totally eliminate cuisines from being in the four-star food genre, where does it end? Can there be no German four star food restaurants or Norwegian or Indian? If I was reviewing Sri with with the same criteria as Per Se under a separate four star system (food, decor, service), Sri would get 4-0-0 and Per Se would get 4-4-4. At least that way, people would know the genre for food was the same, but the restaurant experience was not even close or in the same league. The last time I ate there, no one at the table had a fork that closely resembled anyone else's - but in that setting, who cares? Bottom line, Per Se (and others) cannot be compared with Sri because the dining experience is so different. Both can still serve four-star food within their cuisine, but should never be compared because one is "Man and Superman" and one is "Superman."

I'll answer a couple of questions - Personally, I would eliminate the star system and just have a text review (but then we woudn't have anything to debate). Since I don't think that's possible, then I would separate the stars into categories - food, service ambiance/decor. Someone posted the SF Examiner does that - and SF is a serious food town. Sri, in my opinion, does have four-star food. It's the best example of Thai I've ever had, so why shouldn't it get four? Hell, the NY Times truly gave it four considering that ambiance/decor and service all are determing factors. Since Sri virtually has a zero in those categories, Bruni must have thought the food was four stars as well. (And they don't play heavy metal.) Having eaten at both Pe Se and Sri, I would give them both four stars in the food category - different approaches, but both do the best within their chosen cuisine. I don't consider this equivilent to giving a pizza and/or hot dog place four stars because Thai is a type of serious cuisine, not fast food. All types of cuisines can be four stars - Chinese, Austrian, German, Italian, Spanish, Irish, etc, etc. - okay maybe not Irish . However saying that, I still don't believe Sri should have been reviewed in the primary category since in my opinion it doesn't qualify under the standards the paper has set for those reviews. It should be in the $25 category or a feature as several have suggested. It's a disservice (to both the restaurant and clients) unless the paper and Bruni re-define the current system.

Sripraprai is not serving "4-star food". Its not even serving 2 star food. The luxury of the ingredients just isn't there. ← And yet another argument against the star system.

Actually, I think it's become a debate about both. In fact, I don't see how the issues can be separated.

Even though Sri belongs in the $25 column, I truly believe giving it a 2-star rating in the main review area is a total disservice to the restaurant and the public. Sri is a 4-star restaurant. Granted is has no decor or ambiance, and the service is simple, but it still serves 4-star food. By giving it a 2-star rating, the public is being misled. The food is much better than that. Once again, Bruni has made an exceptional case for eliminating the star system. Thanks, Frank.

"...or what I called a "display of egalitarian fervor by some of society's best-paid sybarites." - FG Sybarite - nice word, haven't seen or heard that word in decades. I think I'll start using it. But then again I haven't been self-indulgent in memory. Getting back to the thread. Bruni has now decided that "distasteful" music eliminates four-start consideration. He has determined that a neighborhood "storefront" Thai (albeit one that serves outstanding food) deserves two stars and a major review. Since he has deconstructed the star system (similar to the manner that restaurants have with food), why not take it to the next level and just eliminate the star system? I've been advocating this longer than I care to remember, but this could be the best argument yet. If not eliminate, then certainly separate the food, decor, service etc. Sri is a $25 and under place - to put it into the main category is a disservice to the restaurant and the public. If Sri gets a New York Times primary review, then where can sybarites turn anymore? They have no one to trust.

He's totally out of control - how does Sripraphai qualify for this type of review? If any place was meant for $25 column, this is it. It's time to retire, enjoy life, get your head together and come back as a rabbit. As an aside - did anyone notice the Times advertised watching the election results with him on the front page of their web site yesterday?

I may be suffering from brain freeze, so forgive me in advance. Years ago (mid 80's to early 90's), I submitted to the Zagat survey regularly. I thought it was a 0-30 system, not a 0-3 system. Has this changed over the years or is the gray matter suffering from dillusional malfunction?

Speaking of Saratoga restaurants, I've heard that Paradiso has closed. Can anyone confirm?

He won't retire until the Red Sox win the World Series.

Not likely. After Gambling is Rush Limbaugh (No political comments allowed here) and he is supposedly the most listened to show in the US.... Arthur would be good in a venue like WNYC. I think he should be a regular guest on the Jonathan Schwartz weekend shows at first and then move to his own slot. Why shouldn't he just move into his own slot on weekdays? Because the only time I listen to radio, aside from WCBS all news, is the Jonathan Schwartz show. I was being greedy.

That's interesting. I haven't done a Zagat survey in about 10-12 years. When I did it, you gave the actual number.

The same way - it's valid under similar conditions. Since Zagat is publishing the average of thousands of opinions, this type of comment is not only valid but could be very important. Let me give an example. A restaurant's average food rating from 1,000 submissions is a 20 and for the last couple of years, the number has been constant (give or take a point). However, in the latest survey, while the restaurant still gets a 20, there are 10-15 ratings (which is not enough to sway the average) that are either six or seven points higher or lower and the comment is made about better or worse than its rating. Printing this is important because a couple of things could have occurred. The restaurant may have gone through a recent change that a lot of diners didn't experience. Or, the food is more appealing to a certain group (people who enjoy game, offal, etc - the list is endless). Another possibilty is that the kitchen has become inconsistent. Another factor is timeliness. One fault of Zagat is that there is no way of knowing if the people submitting have actually eaten in the restaurant during the last year. In that scenario, those comments become even more important.

You may think it's better than its rating, but isn't that comment a pretty total mockery of the "integrity" of the way the rating is reached? I don't think so. I may think a restaurant is several points higher than its current listed number and then write that comment. If at the end of the new year's survey, the editors find several ratings higher than the "new" average with similar comments, then I think it's valid to print such a comment.

Is this another way of asking "do the means justify the end?" Zagat isn't a professional polling organization, so I'm sure the techniques are not scientific. But the results are still meaningful as long as its understood that its just a compilation of opinions - nothing more, nothing less. At least Zagat has the sense to separate food, ambience/service. I could understand that comment about the rating. Sometimes a person knows the Zagat food rating in the latest edition is, say a 22, and thinks the food is better - that's happened to me. In fact, I think I wrote that line.

This is what makes horse racing the greatest sport in the world - differences of opinions. Reasonable people can disagree, yet still respect and understand the other's point of view. I think Bruni's incessant babble about things that don't matter (such as the patron knocking over a lamp in the Bouley review) get in the way. While I think he is an excellent writer, I don't think he's effective as a restaurant or food critic. He's much more suited to the weekend living or magazine sections.

Not likely. After Gambling is Rush Limbaugh (No political comments allowed here) and he is supposedly the most listened to show in the US.... Arthur would be good in a venue like WNYC. I think he should be a regular guest on the Jonathan Schwartz weekend shows at first and then move to his own slot.

Essentially, I was going to say something similar to OA, so I'll keep this brief and just add one more point. The people who vote in Zagat's are not those who are regulars at McDonald's, etc. By the very nature of taking the time to submit a set of "reviews," it means, with a great deal of confidence, that the person is interested in food and "good" restaurants. I would doubt many people who are just fast-food junkies submit to Zagat's.

Actually, I like all reviewers because I value opinions. However, generally I don't agree with their views about Zagat's, which is very negative. Ms. Sheraton, who was an admirable reviewer, spoke for a number of critics when she said how could anyone rely on Zagat's over a single professional restaurant reviewer? Her reasoning was how could the unprofessional masses understand food in the same manner that a professional does? I disagree with that premise. I always believed the combined opinion of many was more reliable than the opinion of one, even if that one was well informed. I guess that's why I enjoy living in a semi-democracy.