slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
the point is that if a restaurant really does have outstanding service....then the odds of them screwing up on Bruni's table on the rare night that they don't recognize him are very low.
therefore, if a restaurant does screw up, the odds are quite high that that restaurant frequently screws up.
I'm no statistician but my limited knowledge of the subject says you're wrong about that. Happy to hear from someone who knows more.
Let's assume that a Screw Up Rate ("SUR") of 1% represents outstanding service. I'm basing this on Steven's postulated 50 out of 5000 tables screwed up per month. We have no idea whether this is accurate, but it's a useful jumping-off point.
This means that every time Bruni sits down in a given restaurant, he would have a 1% chance of experiencing an evening of "unpreventable" poor service. This, as Nathan points out, is a low rate. But it is not zero. It also suggests that, for every 100 times Bruni sits down in a restaurant with a 1% SUR, he can as a general rule of thumb expect one evening of "unpreventable" poor service. However, just as it is possible for a simple coin flip to come up heads 100 times in a row, it's also possible for Bruni to hit either the jackpot or snake-eyes any number of times in a row. With a sample size of 4, it's entirely possible for Bruni to experience a SUR of 50% at a restaurant where the overall SUR is 1%. Indeed, given the number of restaurant meals consumed by Bruni, this is almost certain to happen.
-
4. look at it this way, if he visits Per Se four times and manages to dine anonymously for just one of them...he now has quite a bit more data to work with.
"Quite a bit more data"? He has an arguably useless random sampling that, empirically, hasn't made his reviews any better than when he's recognized every time. "I wonder about Adour" hardly establishes anything to the contrary.
To be clear... What makes this a "useless random sampling" is that it's possible, for example, let's say that the critic is reviewing a restaurant with excellent service. But let's suppose that the restaurant's FOH staff has one of those rare "every so often" bad nights on the critic's first visit. Let's further say that they are back to their usual level of excellence for the critic's subsequent three visits, which also happen to be post-recognition visits. What is the quasi-anonymous critic to deduce from this? If he writes that the restaurant gives crappy service to non-VIPs, he is making an assumption based on his "useless random sampling" and writing something in his review that is not correct. There are any number of extremely plausible scenarios one could envision in which the quasi-anonymous critic's "quite a bit more data" based upon a (presumed) anonymous visit could lead to an erroneous review.
-
Among regular reviewers in this town, Restaurant Girl and Andrea Strong are the ones making the case for non-anonymous reviewers, and I don't know anyone who thinks we need more reviews like theirs.But, unless we can demonstrate that the "notionally anonymous" guys are turning out better and more accurate work than the non-anonymous guys, for me the argument in favor of presumed anonymity must fail.That's a bit of a cheap shot. I could easily say, "among regular reviewers in this town, Frank Bruni and Adam Platt are the ones making the case for non-anonymous reviewers, and I don't know anyone who thinks we need more reviews like theirs."
Whose reviews would you find more valuable: Frank Bruni or David Rosengarten? (Dave: Rosengarten used to be the restaurant critic for "Gourmet.")
-
The story of Bob Lape I already linked to in my previous post, but there it is again if you couldn't find it.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't exactly take innuendo from Page Six and Gawker as accepted fact.
-
I don't think it's necessary for a reviewer to make a reservation in his own name, nor to announce himself upon entry into the restaurant to give up the myth of anonymity.
What you've just described is what Bruni does: he reserves under pseudonyms and doesn't announce himself. That's pretty much how Bruni's brand of anonynimity works—whether mythical or otherwise. As far as we know, he has never donned disguises (à la Reichl or Craig LaBan). If they happen to figure out who he is, then so be it, but he does nothing to accelerate or hasten the process.
Which is exactly why I have found the argument that his reviews are "anonymous" fallacious. The problem with him not "announcing" himself is that, if you believe that a reviewer can be gamed by a restaurant into giving an inappropriately good review, then this system in effect penalizes the restaurants that don't recognize him. This is one reason why, if it is going to be a one-visit review, reserving under the critic's own name serves to level the playing field. Given a system of multiple visits, wouldn't it make more sense to reserve under someone else's name for the first visit and then under the critic's own name for subsequent visits?
-
Dave, you propose any number of justifications for presumed, if not actual anonymity. Many of them sound quite reasonable on paper. But "on paper" isn't my bottom line. My bottom line is the question: can we say for sure that presumed anonymity leads to better, more accurate and informative reviews? I just don't see that it does. Now, part of this may be due to the fact that we haven't exactly been blessed with the greatest reviewers at the NY Times for some number of years now. But, unless we can demonstrate that the "notionally anonymous" guys are turning out better and more accurate work than the non-anonymous guys, for me the argument in favor of presumed anonymity must fail.
-
Sam, you can find your demonstration of the difference between anonymous reviewers and Fat Guy's "100% non-anonymous" reviewers right here.
(Check the footnotes...)
What, exactly, do you think this demonstrates? It demonstrates that one non-anonymous reviewer (Bruni) gave Kobe Club a poor review whereas, according to Chodorow, three other equally non-anonymous reviewers (Greene, Lape, Mariani) "loved it." It's also possible that at least Green and Lape were "anonymous" when they dined there.
Surely you are not so naive to suppose that Bruni is not immediately recognized at a Chodorow restaurant?! If anything, it goes to show that, despite the no doubt extensive attempts made on behalf of Kobe Club's kitchen to game a good review out of Bruni, these attempts were ultimately unsuccessful. This mitigates against presumed anonymity, not for it.
-
I don't think it's necessary for a reviewer to make a reservation in his own name, nor to announce himself upon entry into the restaurant to give up the myth of anonymity.
Do you really think John Mariani has more credibility than the New York Times? Or do you not care because the Times's extra credibility makes it harder for non-Times reviewers to do their jobs?I think that David Rosengarten, as non-anonymous a reviewer as you are likely to find, has more credibility than the NY Times -- certainly under the last few reviewers.
-
since none of is in a position to know all the circumstances of each review, obviously we can't answer slkinsey's question. that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It's a question that can answered simply and definitively with data! All you have to do is find a restaurant where the general consensus of truly anonymous "reviewers" (e.g., bloggers, eG participants, etc.) is that the restaurant is clearly not as good as the critic's review would indicate. For example: Bruni said the steaks were mindblowing, everyone else thinks they're just okay. Bruni rated the restaurant excellent, everyone else thinks it's mediocre. These may be indications that Bruni is incompetent, but they may also be evidence that he was gamed by the restaurant. In the absence of such examples, it is reasonable to conclude that he's not been successfully gamed.
1. again, I wonder about Adour. I'm sure there are other examples. Mermaid Inn or Red Cat or somesuch.
2. many bloggers and foodboard participants aren't anonymous at various restaurants too.
3. many restaurant he reviews we don't have a wealth of data on.
If successful gaming of non-anonymous reviewers is as pervasive as has been claimed, these examples should be many and clear. We shouldn't have to say "I wonder" and "I'm sure there are other examples." The fact that there does not appear to be a preponderance of examples is a strong indication that gaming reviewers and receiving better-than-deserved reviews is not pervasive.
-
I'm guessing that, at this point, my question as to whether we can think of any instances where it's clear that a major reviewer in NYC was successfully gamed to the extent that his/her review clearly overrates the restaurant versus the consensus of other "anonymous" non-soignéed customers is answered with a resounding "no."
I thought that FG provided a great example in Bryan Miller's Four Seasons review. This was pre-blog, pre-eGullet days, but he mentioned that he'd frequently heard complaints about the service there, but for some odd reason, it never actually happened to him.
I think that somehow Steven's example has turned into something else in your mind.
Miller did not say "frequently" -- so I'm not sure where you got that idea. What he said was: "I have received complaints from customers who have been unhappy with the food or service; however, disappointments seem rare based on my six visits over the last four months." That rises to the level of "some" rather than "frequently" (and it's worthy of note that he said "disappointments seem rare" rather than "disappointments were absent"). More to the point, he later said that "a careful observer should be able to rise above his situation and watch how others are treated. On the whole, the staff appears to be professional on a fairly consistent basis." This highlights the fact that even a restaurant operating at a very high level will still have some degree of inconsistency (something Miller also points out in his review). Even the justly lauded Gramercy Tavern will sometimes have a slip-up in service.
-
since none of is in a position to know all the circumstances of each review, obviously we can't answer slkinsey's question. that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It's a question that can answered simply and definitively with data! All you have to do is find a restaurant where the general consensus of truly anonymous "reviewers" (e.g., bloggers, eG participants, etc.) is that the restaurant is clearly not as good as the critic's review would indicate. For example: Bruni said the steaks were mindblowing, everyone else thinks they're just okay. Bruni rated the restaurant excellent, everyone else thinks it's mediocre. These may be indications that Bruni is incompetent, but they may also be evidence that he was gamed by the restaurant. In the absence of such examples, it is reasonable to conclude that he's not been successfully gamed.
-
Other than highlighting the fact that regulars and celebrities get different treatment from complete unknowns, I don't see how it would make a difference. I also have my doubts about that particular review.
-
I'm guessing that, at this point, my question as to whether we can think of any instances where it's clear that a major reviewer in NYC was successfully gamed to the extent that his/her review clearly overrates the restaurant versus the consensus of other "anonymous" non-soignéed customers is answered with a resounding "no."
-
As a proportion of income, the cost of living has risen far more for people in lower income brackets -- which includes plenty of people making their living waiting tables. I also don't agree that the cost of restaurant dining has increased commensurate with the cost of living, or even necessarily with inflation overall.
-
Jackal and I have been over this, he understands the system in the United States, but does not tip, ever while in the united states, because he disagrees with the system.
In other words, it's a justification for being cheap. Unconscionable.
Personally, I don't believe in the UK system that says customers should pay for the meals they order if they do not feel it's worth the price advertised. So when I'm there, I just leave whatever I feel the meal was worth (always much less than the amount of the bill, since those Londoners are notorious overchargers) on the table and slip out the back door when no one is watching.
-
. . . I didn't stiff her, and in my opinion, as a table, *we* didn't stiff her. I'll agree that, somewhere down the line, one or two of my compatriots didn't ante up, and that's wrong...on them.It's common for a restaurant to include a gratuity for larger tables. . .
I thought these two comments dovetailed nicely. As someone who has often been "in charge" of taking large groups to restaurants, I have observed two things about large groups:
1. It is common for large groups to drive up the total cost of the bill. There will always be someone who guzzles through 5 beers when everyone else is having 2, and things like "one more bottle of wine for the table" can always sound like a good idea when the connection between the added cost and each diner's wallet isn't as clear as it is with smaller groups. In my experience, the extent of a restaurant bill is almost always a surprise to the members of the group, most of whom expect it to be considerably smaller. This is how places like rodizios make their money.
2 It is common for members of large groups to be cheap when making their contributions, and you almost always end up short if you leave it up to each individual to decide how much they will kick in. The guy who went through those 5 beers will never pay twice as much as the guy who only had one, and the people who had a glass or two of that extra bottle of wine usually won't feel it's their responsibility since they weren't the ones who actually ordered it (and, of course, the person who ordered it also won't feel it's his responsibility, since other people drank from the bottle). And, of course, some people are just cheap and believe this is a context where they can get away with it. It's also common for large groups to be cheap because of my observation #1 above: the bill is higher than they expected it to be. As a result, when managing these groups myself I always added 20% and then told each person what they would be paying -- making sure that I charged the heavy drinkers more than the light drinkers.
These two reasons are why restaurants add a service or gratuity charge to the bill for large groups: because, if they didn't, the server would end up getting stiffed 90% of the time. As other people have observed, serving one 12 top can be considerably more work than serving two 4 tops and two 2 tops, and the risk is a lot greater. Adding the mandatory gratuity charge is standard because, without it, restaurants in the US system simply wouldn't be able to serve large parties. Arguing about the word that is used (if the menu says "service charge" it's okay, but not if it says "gratuity") is nothing more than nitpicking -- everyone knows what it means. Trying to wiggle out of the responsibility because the menu says "gratuity" is... well... simply an excuse for being miserly.
I don't know the going rate, last time I was in the US 10% was normal.I think you'll find that a lot of things in the US have changed since 1973.
The IRS seem to assume 8% of turnover. Perhaps someone should tell them its now 20%That is a misrepresentation of the IRS's policies on reporting tip income. Employers are required to report tip income to the IRS for tax withholding purposes with respect to their waitstaff and other tipped employees (all of whom are paid at a rate substantially lower than minimum wage because it is assumed that they make the bulk of their income from tips). When reporting such tip income, the amount reported may not be less than 8% of total receipts.
-
Historically there has been a Campari Bianco. I can't tell if it is still produced, and I've never seen a bottle of it myself. But if you google "campari bianco" you can find cites and images.
-
Again... since we all recognize that the Times reviewer is recognized by at least 80% of the restaurants he reviews, can we think of any instances where it's clear that he was successfully gamed to the extent that his review clearly overrates the restaurant versus the consensus of other "anonymous" non-soignéed customers? If the answer is no, I don't see how there can be any tangible basis for furthering the argument for anonymity.
-
You can do the math: if Bruni pays 3-4 visits before he writes, and if he's recognized 80% of the time, it means that at most restaurants he reviews, he has at least one truly anonymous visit.
Even assuming that I accept the 80% number -- this isn't how the math works. If he's recognized 80% of the time, that means he's recognized at 80% of the restaurants he visits. Realistically, what this means it that for most restaurants he has zero truly anonymous visits.
I would hazard a guess that, based on 3-4 visits per restaurant, Bruni is recognized by something closer to 95% of the restaurants. Most likely perhaps 80% of them recognize him the first time he walks in the door, and another 15% or so figure it out by visit number four. The number of truly anonymous visits that goes into the typical review by a significant restaurant reviewer is clearly less than 1 on average.
I'm also interested that no one has responded meaningfully to Steven's point: Operating on the assumption that Bruni is recognized at virtually every restaurant of note he visits (let's say it's 100% of the time by the 4th visit for the purposes of discussion)... can we think of any examples where his experience has been successfully gamed by the restaurant such that he turned in a review reflecting a significantly higher level of quality than what is reported by the general population of truly anonymous food blogers and internet forum participants? If restaurants were able to effectively game non-anonymous reviewers this way, one would expect that, at least 50% of the time, Bruni's reviews would indicate a significantly better restaurant than what is reported by anonymous foodies. This shouldn't be a subtle effect.
-
I think the picture is limiting because of low resolution and distortion. I blew up the layers from the left hand side of Dave's top picture, because it seemed the least distorted and the most focused view of the layers. This is what I got:
Even with this image, the layers at the top are more discernable than the layers on the bottom. What I got was the following:
Stainless: 17.5%
Aluminum: 8%
Copper: 49%
Aluminum 8%
Stainless: 17.5%
If we apply these measurements to the patent and the stated layer thicknesses at 0.072 inches, we get the following:
Stainless: 0.014 inches (patent) versus 0.0126 inches (photo) -- difference is 0.0014 inches.
Aluminum: 0.004 inches (patent) versus .00576 inches (photo) -- difference is 0.00176 inches.
Copper: 0.036 inches (patent) versus 0.03528 inches (photo) -- difference is 0.00072 inches.
This means that the photo accords with the patent information to a very high degree of precision. A higher resolution and more in-focus photograph (no disrespect to Dave, who wasn't exactly doing this with a tripod and studio lighting!) would undoubtedly have resulted in an even greater degree of correspondence.
-
Perfectly acceptable vodkas under $20: Iceberg (grain)
Luksusowa (potato)
If one is intent on having vodka around, this is an area in which there are significant savings to be had. I'd add Smirnoff to that list.
Someone mentioned Seagram's Distillers Reserve Gin (102 proof). A rather good gin with a price that beats the pants off the premium gins, plus, other than Old Raj (at $60), I don't know of any other gins that top 100 proof.Plymouth Navy Strength is actually a bit higher than 50% abv.
-
Well, I think that's exactly the point. It's one culinary outlook among many possibilities. This particular question has to do with cheese (by which is normally meant a sharp, strongly flavored grating cheese) and seafood in the Italian tradition. More to the point, when one considers the contexts in which one might possibly have grating cheese with seafood in the Italian tradition, we're talking about seafood pasta (no one is suggesting grating pecorino over a grilled branzino). For me, grating cheese just doesn't make much sense in this context. And also, as Steven points out, the Italian tradition places a high value on pure, essential, unadulterated flavors, especially when it comes to seafood.
That said, I've got no difficulties with a little cheese or dairy in other contexts. Clearly the French tradition, for example, has no trouble with cheese or dairy of any kind with seafood. And I like an oyster pan roast, coquilles st. jacques or clam chowder as much as the next guy.
-
Oh yea. For sure there are exceptions. As Nancy Harmon Jenkins says in the article, "One of the great things about Italy is they love making rules. And they obey very few."
As a general rule of thumb you'll find that Italians don't serve grating cheese with seafood, or really with anything deemed to be so delicate that it would be "overwhelmed by the strong flavor of the cheese" (this often includes things liks fresh porcini). But, of course, one will be able to find examples here and there including a touch of cheese (although these are often either very mild grating cheeses or not grating cheeses at all). In this way, it's a bit like the rule of thumb saying that seafood goes with olive oil and that neither one goes with fresh pasta. And yet, in certain regions, you can find seafood with fresh pasta in a sauce incorporating either olive oil or butter.
None of the foregoing has much to say about the general advisability of these rules of thumb. As a general practice, I do think it makes sense to stay away from using grating cheese with most seafood, and as a general practice I think it makes sense to serve seafood with dry pasta and olive oil. As for the original question as to clams: Personally I don't think that cheese of any kind would make a very harmonious combination with clams or mussels Scallops, on the other hand...
-
Huh. I guess I'm not paying enough attention!
Bruni and Beyond: Reviewing (2008)
in New York: Dining
Posted
Nathan, that makes no difference. All it says is that there is a low percent chance that he'll experience a screwup event when he sits down. That defines his experience, but doesn't allow us to extend his experience to the restaurant at large, because the sample size is way too small (never mind the fact that we all understand that even a restaurant with great service will still occasionally give sub-par service to a valued customer or recognized critic).