Pudlo: understanding the ratings

[brescd01]

I have difficulty understanding Pudlo's ratings (I am using the French version of the latest Paris edition). The ratngs for food appear to be determined by 1-3 plates. Then there are knives and forks, and whether these relate at all to food is unclear. The problem is, there is a large "space" covered beneath one plate (for example I do not think there is a single brasserie dignified with a plate). Is the mere inclusion meant to be a rec? What about the "broken plate" then, which is used to indicate a "deception," and boy, those reviews are bitter!

[julot-les-pinceaux]

It's a copy of the Michelin, where the plates replace the stars. So one plat is a very good restaurant, two is worth a détour, three is worth a journey. Indeed a broken plat means don't go. And the forks and knives, just like in the Michelin, indicate the level of luxury, usually correlated with price to some extent. So one fork will be like paper table cloth, and whatever the max is will be gold and marble everywhere and five penguins per patron.

I should add that Pudlo is significantly unreliable, and in the worst possible way, as some ratings are actually pretty acurate and some are pure fantasy/fashion/commercial interest. I never use Pudlo.

Edited May 5, 2009 by julot-les-pinceaux (log)

[brescd01]

I will consider myself warned! Your explanation corresponds to my understanding. But my confusion lies in the space between "0" and 1 plate: there are so few restaurants that get one plate, how does Pudlo distinguish amongst the restaurants it reviews but do not earn a plate?

[julot-les-pinceaux]

Well, I guess you have to read what it says and make up your mind. I'm assuming that, except for broken plates, it's also like the Michelin and most other guides that the mere fact of being in the book is a recommendation.