I absolutely agree. Interesting point, but I think the half star is a good idea. The only logical alternative would be to list the restaurants in order of merit (as opposed to alphabetically), otherwise the list would be potentially very short... and a bit like Michelin! I think it's hard not to be predictable on these lists and you're always going to get a sense of the critic's personal preferences (this is the sort of thing that sells newspapers). Doorley is not into "new cookery", so I think Mint actually did well to be rated so high from his perspective (I bet the Tom Aikens comment is doing Dylan McGrath's head in!). And he included Thornton's this time, which he left off the Eating in Ireland list about 2 years ago. Welcome to eG Forums btw. ← My concern comes from Doorley's own personal food preferences which are centred on innovative cooking, referring to a better use of ingredients. He is on record complaining about the abuse of salad leafs, the unseasonable use of key ingredients etc, yet most of the restaurants in the list serve the antithesis of the preferences he prescribes to. Maybe food commentators are by wanting to remain true to their subject inevitably going to be tainted when talking about restaurants. It's the "gin and tonic problem". With lime and I'm a carbon loving demon, without it life is anodyne. For an example of this read Lucinda O'Sullivan review of Thorton's. Personal perhaps but ultimately useless and to a visitor it will only serve to frustrate and disappoint. Thanks for welcome.