Tom Sietsema's Online Chat

[Fat Guy]

I barely can remember the last review I thought he totally missed the mark on--totally and completely got it wrong

Minibar.

Having been there, and having re-read Tom's review in light of my own experience, I think he profoundly missed the point of what is in my opinion one of the most important restaurants in North America. Tom has been good to Jose, to be sure, but he fucked up on this review.

That being said, I join you in thinking Tom is one of the good guys -- a savvy restaurant reviewer who has his heart in the right place and knows his stuff. I don't dine around DC enough to have a ready database for comparison, but I appreciate a lot of what Tom writes. Certainly, he's one of the only critics I read outside my own city.

I also agree that his chat is something to be thankful for, though I personally find live chat to be a poor medium -- it's old-school Internet from the days when producers of Internet content were trying to emulate radio and television. Why create such a limiting structure, where everybody has to tune in at a given time and Tom has no time to think through his answers -- or to write lengthier, reasoned responses to the best questions? A weekly call-in radio program would be better for that. Online, clearly the best technology for meaningful discussion is what we use here, or a variant of it. This sort of technology works very well for Q&A -- it allows people to ask their questions any time, it allows the person answering the questions to answer them at any pace, it captures much of the immediacy of "live" programming, yet it allows for depth that simply can't exist in the real-time format.

[Miguelito]

What I don't get about Seitsema's chats is why he (or his producer) selects so many lame questions/rants to post.

He often says he gets waaaay too many questions to respond to more than a small fraction. Can they all be so lame that he has no choice but to respond for the umpteenth time to a FAQ like where to get a good burger? Why post rather than ignore idiotic rants about the advice he just gave? The ranters cannot be placated, so why waste precious chat time trying? I'm not so sure he enjoys it; to my eye his responses have taken a turn toward the caustic/exasperated and away from the witty -- not so entertaining (or flattering) to read, IMO.

Why not just pick the most interesting questions, answer them thoughtfully, and forget the rest?

[Steve Klc]

All good questions Miguelito. I suspect the bulk of the questions he receives fit your definition of lame and that he tries his best. But, given the inherent format as Steve Shaw just pointed out--even if there were some hot issues to come up--the format mitigates against pursuing it in any real depth. So he's stuck. Comments like yours, though, probably give him a boost knowing that there some of his faithful would prefer him "pick the most interesting questions, answer them thoughtfully, and forget the rest."

[DonRocks]

My evil twin submitted this question today, but inexplicably, Tom chose not to post it on the chat.

---------------

Exiled Aborigine from Northwest Territories, Canada

Good morning Tom,

I was wondering if you knew of anyplace in town where I could get some beaver.

(Along with muskrat, it's an important staple of our traditional diet, often free of contaminants since it eats no meat. It's also an excellent source of iron, protein and vitamin B.)

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful reply.

[Malawry]

The Post server can be slow, but Tom has also admitted he's not the fastest typist...and also said he writes some of the responses to previously submitted questions before going live. His chat moves at a pace comparable to that of the other Live Online hosts, IMO. If it's too slow for you, you can always read it archived...which I usually do.

[Tom Sietsema]

Mind if I chime in?

While it is true that I do get a lot of repeat questions (and rants and raves), I work hard to avoid them and mix up the topics from week to week. In my most recent chat, for instance, the subjects included telephone manners, kids in restaurants, where to eat in London, good neighbor spots, mention of the winners of a restaurant's Valentine's Day contest and so on.

"Lame?", Mark? I'm not sure what you expect of the chat. Some discussions -- like some nights in restaurants -- are bound to be better, livelier than others. I aim to address 40 or so questions per chat out of the hundreds I typically get.

Alas, I have no control over the speed with which the questions are posted. But I typically DO prepare for the chat, coming in two or three hours beforehand to check out rumors, verify addresses and such. The LAST thing I want to do is post erroneous information.

And just to clarify: I am not obligated by the Post to host a chat. I do it because I think it's a good way to connect with readers and exchange information. Indeed, when I was hired, the job of the food critic was to 1) write a weekly review and 2) write an annual dining guide. Everything else on my plate is something I proposed and thought might make for better restaurant coverage in the paper. That includes The Weekly Dish column, the Ask Tom reader-service column, my monthly Postcards for outside Washington and my radio spots on WTOP. That said, I take the weekly chat as seriously as anything I write for the paper.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to comment -- something I'm reluctant to do, because I have my own forum.

[hannnah]

As an aside, in my experience with the Post's chat software, one spends at least half the allotted time of the chat trying to get it to do what it's supposed to - it's abnormally twitchy, and one wrong keystroke can kick you out of the chat altogether. I'm happy that I only have to deal with it once a year as geek behind the curtain. I can't imagine having to do it 50 or so weeks a year as Answer Person.

[doctoro]

I am starting to think that the only people that read the food section are 5 star chefs??? Or at least think of themselves in that light.

I think Tom does a great job of serving up a mixed bag of responses to his chats.

This from someone who has not had the majority of his questions addressed on the board. But I am at least in the realization that there are a million or so people that eat out everyday in this area, and read the paper. So I don't think Tom

should only limit himself to the kinds of questions that only chefs and foodies on this forum want to have answered just for the sake of taking an opposing view or looking for a confirmation of their view. Alot of people are looking for a good place to dine, and aren't very knowledgeable about food. Maestro and Citronelle

aren't the only two places to eat in this town. So even though I like to hear what experts in the foodservice industry are saying, I think in a public forum you have to address the masses in a less specialized way, hoping to cover all food and dining issues.

Besides I get more of a kick out of hearing about the hidden gem up on U street or out in the Burbs, than I do about hearing whether or not the risotto at Maestro's is on par with what Roberto Donna is doing in one of his Laborotorio's! Please!

The experts who eat there shouldn't have to hear it from Tom! They should already know!

The Doctor Is Out!

[DonRocks]

Here are my two opposing points of view:

1) From an insider's point of view (i.e., someone like Mark), the questions can indeed become repetitive. Although he cannot possibly be as up-to-the-minute as Tom, Mark already knows the answers to these things. What can you possibly say in a Washington DC restaurant chat to enlighten a grizzled industry veteran? Let's face it, this town is pretty small, and Mark keeps awfully current as to what's going on.

2) Okay, so? Given the subject matter and slow servers (and they both are givens), how is the chat going to be any better? Answer: I don't think it can be. What's Tom gonna do, talk about how to shoe a horse? He has to talk about the Zaytinyas, the Nectars, the romantic dinners at this-and-that place - what other option is there? And let's face it, if the word "Zaytinya" comes up in the next two months, people will accuse the chat of repetition.

Furthermore, Tom is constrained by the shackles of decency and cannot type things such as this:

Q: What did they give Tickle-me Elmo before he left the factory?

A: Two test tickles.

My interpretation of Mark's posting is that it's not a criticism of Tom; it's simply that other than a startling revelation that Ann Cashion has been whisked away by space aliens, the chat cannot possibly be as entertaining for him as it is for other, less in-the-know readers. Fair interpretation, Mark? You could always read through some Orlando Gibbons, y'know?

Edited March 18, 2004 by DonRocks (log)

[bilrus]

I think in the last few weeks the content of the chat has gotten a little more interesting. There was a stretch where things were getting really repetitive and there was criticism (both here and in the chat itself). To Tom's credit I think he has taken the criticisms into account and made an effort to address a broader array of topics, which is undoubtedly more difficult than answering the same default questions each week.

The chat may get a little repetetive for those of us who spend an inordinate (some might even think inappropriate) amount of time thinking and chatting about restaurants here and around the country. But I think back to before I found eGullet and Tom's chat was my main source for restaurant information - both here and in other cities. Tom gave me some excellent advice on places in Puerto Rico and Tampa in response to questions I posed. Now that I know about eGullet I know I can get more in depth information here, but not everyone knows about eGullet. Yet.

It can't be all things to all people.

[pastramionrye]

i like the chat...it can be repetitive, but who cares...not everyone tunes in religiously.

my only complaint are the people who write in and bitch to tom about why he does this, why he says that, why he acted this way...its like he has 1000 mothers out there in readership land...

as for the content...i think it's pretty cool that eric ziebold is coming to DC...i for one am looking forward to his new restaurant at the mandarin hotel. i think this is huge news for the DC restaurant and dining scene to get a chef of his caliber at the beginning of his career as an executive chef.

[Mark Sommelier]

Didn't mean to sound so harsh using the word "lame". Sorry about that, Tom. The volume of the best burger/burrito/romantic place/cheap eats questions get to me sometimes.

Mark - "Grizzled restaurant veteran" (quote DonRocks)

[iamthestretch]

I think we may be in danger here of conflating the man and the medium when discussing these online chats.

I don't know Tom Sietsema from a bar of soap, but based on his work there are a couple of things that stand out. First, his reviewing persona, at least, is not exactly burdened with a crippling lack of self-esteem. But that's hardly a bad thing when your stock-in-trade is making highly subjective judgements on a topic that just about everybody thinks they know a bit about by virtue of sitting down to three squares a day. And second, he's undeniably an energetic and entrepreneurial critic who has gone far beyond the initial confines of his beat to produce, in the chats, what is essentially a free gift to DC diners. (That is assuming that you, too, choose to represent yourself to the Post's voracious data gatherers as something along the lines of Heywood Jablome, age 69, bojonessux@hotmail.com.)

But the problem, of course, is that once you hand out enough free gifts, they just morph into another entitlement. Which is why, in addition to the hundreds of questions Mark mentioned, I supect there are at least as many "Why didn't you answer my 'Hey. Are there any good places to eat in Georgetown? Thanx.' query for the last 5 weeks?" remonstrances. And with that level of basic background noise, I don't think he can have the kind of detailed, measured (?) conversations that this particular audience is interested in.

He could, of course, choose to jump in on eGullet with both feet, but frankly that would be working for free so why should he? Or he could set up a similar, board-based rather than chat, forum under the aegis of the Post to really get in-depth. But that would become a 24/7/365 life-sucking monster faster than Gillian Clark would kick your ass for asking for the "Atkins burger." So I agree with Malawry; read the chats after the fact to avoid the annoying format issues and be happy with the occasional nuggets that do crop up amid all the other ore. Send Gene Weingarten all the esoteric food questions -- he eats for the first team...

[laniloa]

I too gleaned most of my restaurant info from Tom before I found eG. I still rely on it for the feedback on the ebbs and flows in quality at some of my favs around town. And, quite frankly, my memory sucks so I don't mind the repetition. Finally, I like the entertainment value. To see the unrealistic expectations, the fledgling foodies stretch their wings, the rants, and some truly funny comments from Tom all make me smile. Most weeks I read after the fact -- takes mere minutes. Considering Tom gets to choose what makes the chat, I think he is remarkably patient with some ridiculously cranky posters. Keep up the good work Tom and congrats on the nom.

[eunny jang]

See Tom type

See Tom chat

See Tom rage

'bout a quarter down the page.

[JennyUptown]

One of my friends just confessed to me that she was the writer in the 3/17 chat who complained of a nail in her husband's meal.

She said it was actually a screw.

[morela]

See Tom rage

'bout a quarter down the page.

Yes, but those chatters today were awful. People defend their positions all over the Internet, why not Tom on his chat?

[eunny jang]

Oh no, I'm usually surprised that Tom's not nastier when he's called upon to defend himself and his opinions to a bunch of people who seem to regard anonymity as an excuse to be rude. I was just commenting that the chat has gotten rather rowdy lately (not that I mind - I much prefer his spirited chat over, say, Kim O'Donnel's love-and-empowerment fest).

[doctoro]

I think Tom had a right to rage on anyone who calls him dog, if you want my opinion, Lauriol Plaza is a place to be seen, but not to enjoy good food. Maybe the

dog who posted his opinion works there or has never eaten in good Latin places.

There are alot in the area.

[JennyUptown]

You forgot something, doctoro...

The doctor is OUT!

[Mark Sommelier]

The dog post was over the top. It had to be a joke post. Only idiots and children call each other dog. IMO.

[JennyUptown]

The dog post was over the top. It had to be a joke post. Only idiots and children call each other dog. IMO.

Only idiots, children and Randy Jackson (of American Idol fame), that is.

[JPW]

The dog post was over the top. It had to be a joke post. Only idiots and children call each other dog. IMO.

Only idiots, children and Randy Jackson (of American Idol fame), that is.

The funny thing to me is that the accepted spelling for this particular colloquialism is "dawg".

It kind of makes you wonder.....

[morela]

The dog post was over the top. It had to be a joke post. Only idiots and children call each other dog. IMO.

Only idiots, children and Randy Jackson (of American Idol fame), that is.

The funny thing to me is that the accepted spelling for this particular colloquialism is "dawg".

It kind of makes you wonder.....

I love the UrbanDictionary.

Funny

[DonRocks]

[from the 7/14/04 online chat] Tom Sietsema: I have never been on a cruise

Tom: cruise.