Rating restaurants only on DINNER

[Suzanne F]

On the Kinkead's thread (DC board), Steve Klc points out that restaurants are generally rated on the basis of dinner -- that's the service given more scrutiny -- sometimes the ONLY scrutiny, and often the only one mentioned in write-ups.

If a restaurant serves other dayparts -- whether breakfast, lunch, late-night, or something in between -- do you think those other meals should be included in the consideration, and mentioned in reviews?

To start off the discussion: I do, because they are definitely part of the restaurant's OVERALL performance and may be distinctly different (plus OR minus) from dinner.

[fifi]

I agree. I can think of a couple of examples where a more comprehensive review would have definitely been to the restaurant's advantage...

I recall a seafood place on the water that got so-so reviews for dinner (true) but was a knockout place for breakfast on the weekends.

Then there was the Indian restaurant that got good reviews for dinner but didn't mention the lunch buffet that turned out to be a "must do". The two experiences were totally different and would probably target a different market.

[Fat Guy]

Assuming a restaurant reviewer has the budget to visit a restaurant once, which meal should the reviewer choose? Dinner. (This is the typical budgetary constraint in a low-circulation/low-budget publication.)

Assuming a restaurant reviewer has the budget to visit a restaurant twice, which meals should the reviewer choose? Dinner and dinner. (This is by far the most common arrangement.)

Assuming a restaurant reviewer has the budget to visit a restaurant three times, which meals should the reviewer choose? Dinner, dinner, and lunch. (Three or more visits are, for the most part, possible only for the reviewers who are working for the best-funded publications like the New York Times and Gourmet.)

That's the general approach of just about every reviewer I know. Of course, if you're reviewing Norma's, you adjust your plan because it's specifically a breakfast restaurant. But in most cases dinner is the reasonable target of a review and it's not practical for a reviewer to cover every shift with multiple visits -- especially not at a place that's open three meals, seven days, plus afternoon tea, late night, Sunday brunch, etc.

Even specifically within the dinner service, it's really the a la carte menu that gets the most attention from critics. Most critics will never order a tasting menu. Or a vegetarian menu.

[Suzanne F]

Thanks for the discourse on how reviews are researched. Now, back to my original question: do you think it's fair to a restaurant to critique on the basis of only one service? And, by extension: is it fair to critique the basis of only one visit? How might a reviewer get around that limitation?

[indiagirl]

i agree. rating a restaurant based purely on a single meal, at a single time of day, seems unfair.

possible alternatives, if a reviewer is on a single meal budget:

-find out which meal the restaurant is popular/most crowded for

-ask the restaurant what they consider their "signature" meal

in an ideal world, i think reviews should also be based on multiple visits. to me, this is of importance so that the reviewer can sample a larger percentage of the menu. i think it is more reasonable to can a restuarant for service or cold food based on a single visit.

[Fat Guy]

rating a restaurant based purely on a single meal, at a single time of day, seems unfair.

That's what consumers do every time they eat at a restaurant.

There's nothing wrong with writing about a restaurant based on one meal there, provided there's no misrepresentation made by the author regarding the number of meals that are informing the write-up. Information based on one meal is more valuable than no information at all. Information based on two or more meals is often more valuable than information based on one, though not necessarily. To call a single-visit report a "review" might be a bit much -- I'd call it more of a "report" -- but there's nothing unfair about it.

I think people get overly hung up on the "medium" of the restaurant. It's certainly true that reviewing a restaurant presents challenges in terms of consistency and scope. But ultimately the restaurant is the restaurant. There's usually a heck of a lot more in common between two meals at a given restaurant than there is different. Most reviewers will tell you that they get the overwhelming majority of the information they need on the first visit, and that a major shift in opinion during subsequent visits is the exception. I wonder if it's any more likely than a major shift of opinion would be after viewing a theatrical performance several times.

[Fat Guy]

Thanks for the discourse on how reviews are researched.  Now, back to my original question: do you think it's fair to a restaurant to critique on the basis of only one service?  And, by extension: is it fair to critique the basis of only one visit?  How might a reviewer get around that limitation?

I don't see how you can separate the question of fairness from the question of practicality. Any journalistic standard is going to derive from a combination of realism and aspiration. And the proof is always in the pudding.

Look at it this way: The New York Times has a virtually infinite reviewing budget, and can send its reviewer to a restaurant as many times as time allows. Assuming the reviewer dines out seven days a week for lunch and dinner (this is just theoretical) and has to waste a certain number of meals on exploratory visits to restaurants that don't ultimately get reviewed (this is the real example of a one-visit review: nothing gets written at all), the reviewer can probably visit 10 times if he really wants to. My educated guess is that 3 or 4 times is more normal for Grimes.

So here's the question: Do Grimes's 3 or 4 visits (plus his option of 10 visits) yield better, fairer reviews than those of other critics who may be visiting less often (like just twice for dinner)?

I would think, at a bare minimum, we would want proof that more (and more varied) visits equals better reviews as a general proposition.

[vengroff]

Despite being the author of the lunch report that inspired this thread, I'm with the Steves. If a reviewer can only have a single meal, it should be dinner. Obviously, three or four visits, including at least one lunch, is going to give the reviewer a broader collection of data to work with.

I think the question of dinner-only reviews becomes more interesting if you turn it on its head. What if a reviewer went the opposite direction, and built him or herself a niche reviewing lunches only? It's not unreasonable to believe that there is a place for this in a large city. There are a lot of people who dine out more at midday than they do in the evenings. The audience is probably mostly office workers and businesspeople, but also includes city visitors, bargain hunters, and those who enjoy dining in the city but have family obligations that force them to retreat to the suburbs most evenings. Think of how many times the lunch at Bouley is recommended on the New York forum. Clearly there is interest in lunch.

Maybe one of eGullet's own aspiring food writers could give the lunch beat a shot in their city?

[indiagirl]

Rating a restaurant based purely on a single meal, at a single time of day, seems unfair unless the reviewer clearly indicates what the review is based on, single meal, dinner only. Or as FG said, a report, not a review

And yes, I agree that that is what consumers do everyday. But reviewing is not the consumers profession, is it? In fact, the function of a restaurant review is to arm the consumers with information which increases their probability of enjoying a meal out.

Also, FG, you use the phrase "wrong" - I don't think it is wrong to base an opinion of the restaurant on a single meal, it's unsound. And if not clearly indicated in the review, unfair. Possibly the most typical occurence under the practical constraints you mentioned, but I would like to hear opinions about whether the following two are practically possible and would make reviews better:

-find out which meal the restaurant is popular/most crowded for

-ask the restaurant what they consider their "signature" meal

About the theater analogy, I think it is not an apt analogy - because repeat performances of theater are designed to be alike. Whereas breaskfast and dinner are supposed to be different experiences, different cooking styles etc. Repeat visits to a restaurant also allow discovery of aberrations such as significant drop in food quality when chef is absent or excellent lamb, mediocre chicken type trends even if one sticks to dinnerl.

[tommy]

should a restaurant's overall "rating" also take very-end-of-service-seatings into consideration? you know, when you're they last table there and everyone is waiting to leave? how about when you're the first table in at lunch and staff are still tying their aprons on. does anyone *really* care? or is this just another exercise.

[Steve Klc]

I don't have any problem either with single meal reports--snapshots in time which can be conveyed in a more timely fashion and can often be more accurate than what is on the books. There's nothing as depressing for someone in the biz as out-of-date opinions on chefs or restaurants. The big problem is when critic or reader tries to extend or extrapolate from that one report into something more universal. It just can't be done.

In an ideal world I'd agree completely with Suzanne--lunch should be every bit as consistent and representative as dinner, it should be evaluated as part of a whole and on its own standards, covered with equal emphasis and I'd love to read more about brunch service--I'm an equal opportunity omnivore and consumer. However, let's get real. Only relatively recently have critics started to realize hey, maybe I should learn something about wine and mention the helpfulness of a sommelier in a review, maybe I should devote more than a perfunctory mention of the creme brulee, chocolate brownie and vanilla ice cream in a review, maybe I should mention the names of pastry chefs doing good work. And if by ignoring lunch/brunch/afternoon tea/happy hour snacks, leaving little updates about these to features and stories by other writers--a reviewer could do better justice to more timely dinner reportage--I'd be very happy and I'd think we gain as consumers. Here's why it might be unrealistic to expect more, as Suzanne does, at given current levels of support: how many of the elite 4 star Reichl restaurants in NYC have yet to be reviewed by Grimes? If the Times can't prioritize to have something more current than from 1998 on the books for a few of these warhorses, how can anyone realistically expect anything else? Turn the question around--how would most people be better served--with more timely reviews, turned around sooner than 5 years, of the most significant restaurants in a given city or with expanded coverage to include lunch/brunch but in an even less timely more "stuck in time" feel to them? Which would be more fair to the reader or visitor to a city?

While my heart is with you Suzanne--and while from a consumer perspective I'd like to know if what's offered at lunch has any/some/all of the panache offered at dinner--I think I'd still opt for finding out if the current reviewer in a given city still feels if the Jean-Georges/Lespinasse/Kinkeads etc of the worlds are still all that, still as culinarily relevant and still deserving of the top billing as the scene around them has evolved. Are they still making the grade or mailing it in?

[Fat Guy]

About the theater analogy, I think it is not an apt analogy - because repeat performances of theater are designed to be alike. Whereas breaskfast  and dinner are supposed to be different experiences, different cooking styles etc. Repeat visits to a restaurant also allow discovery of aberrations  such as significant drop in food quality when chef is absent or excellent lamb, mediocre chicken type trends even if one sticks to dinnerl.

That's two separate issues: 1) the breakfast/ lunch/ dinner/ brunch/ afternoon-tea/ late-night/ bar-menu/ tavern-room/ banquets/ tasting-menus/ pre-theater issue, and 2) the issue of repeat visits for any one service in order to reveal inconsistencies and trends, and to allow a wider sampling of the menu.

What I'm saying is that, with regard to number 1, it's simply impractical to cover all the bases so restaurant reviews correctly default to a dinner analysis, because in almost every instance that's the meal most worthy of critical attention. If the critic gets some special information -- like that Luger's is significantly more pleasurable at lunchtime -- that's a lead that can be pursued if the budget allows. But in general you work with dinner. Remember that a restaurant review is not supposed to be a raw exercise in consumer protection. It's criticism. The means the reviewer first and foremost seeks out the most reviewable encounter with the chef.

In terms of number 2, you're making a theoretical argument. And there's no question it's the intuitive argument. What I'm asking is whether reality supports it. What I find interesting is the general lack of diversity in restaurant reviewers' conclusions. For most restaurants that get reviewed, the critical community comes across as relatively unified: plus or minus a star here or there, maybe some disagreement about specific dishes, but ultimately unified. And the unity exists among the reviewers who go once and the reviewers who go five times, and also among those who dine anonymously and those who don't. Yes, once in awhile there's a restaurant that gets wildly disparate reviews. Usually, that means there's a political issue in play, the restaurant is very unusual and therefore requires development of new criteria, or the restaurant is radically inconsistent. But for the most part, I don't think you see such a major improvement in the end-product just from multiple visits.

[Lesley C]

This may sound unfair, but I think the number of visits has a lot to do with the style of restaurant.

There are some restaurants that you "get" on the first go. This is often the case with old-fashioned French restaurants. I think the more innovative restaurants call for a few visits for the reviewer to get a firm grasp on the chef's style. And then there are the restaurants that are constantly changing their menus. That's a tough case because you eventually want to write about plates that are featured with some frequency.

IMO, you can judge a restaurant, fairly, once you've sampled the majority of dishes being served. Specifics aren’t that important. You're evaluating the talent and technique of the chef, and how close the restaurant is to fulfilling its potential in areas such as concept and service. When it comes to service, I've often needed a second visit if there was a large group present, and the waits between courses were long. Groups mess up the whole dining room dynamic.

Lunch in many restaurants seems like watered-down dinner, but the atmosphere can be very different. Food-wise, dinner is it. And breakfast and brunch don't count for me unless it's the restaurant's raison d'etre.

I was just comparing notes with a reviewer who dines out 12 times a week. At that rate, restaurant dining becomes a way of life, which might water-down some of that excitement you get when dining out, taking away that sense of special occasion.

[Fat Guy]

There are some restaurants that you "get" on the first go.

I totally agree with that. When I was negotiating the terms of an agreement with a company that wanted me to do weekly reviews, they wanted to set it at two visits per review. What I tried to negotiate for was 10 visits per month, divided any way I wanted. That way, I could "spend" a review on an exploratory visit that didn't yield a review, I could write about a steakhouse or other relatively straightforward place based on one visit, and I could save 3 or even 4 visits for the big-ticket, four-star or ultra-creative places. In the end we just settled on a specific amount of money per month, which was equally workable for me, since the amount was sufficient to buy me the body of experience I needed to do the job well enough. More money might have helped me be a better critic, but there would have been seriously diminishing returns.

[funcook]

On the Kinkead's thread (DC board), Steve Klc points out that restaurants are generally rated on the basis of dinner -- that's the service given more scrutiny -- sometimes the ONLY scrutiny, and often the only one mentioned in write-ups.

If a restaurant serves other dayparts -- whether breakfast, lunch, late-night, or something in between -- do you think those other meals should be included in the consideration, and mentioned in reviews?

Well the restaurants ratings are just an introduction by the reviewer to a an ordinary diner or to an expert diner. Basically he is the eyes of the audience.

Now if the ratings are based on dinner/lunch/breakfast/bar scene/happy hour it's his opinion and now it is upto the diner to discover the rest of the events and make their own judgements and ratings in their personal dairy.

In most cases(restaurants) I usually find that restaurants opened by known operator/chef or a new operator.owner with the best firm in public relations get an automatic full review and an indepth review and pick the good things and often forget the negatives.

So overall whether it is dinner/lunch or what ever , sometimes it is unfair.

As I have said earlier, it is an introduction to a restaurant by the reviewer to a prospective client and it is copletely up the client to judge from their on.

I personally think and am strong about a noted news paper or Magazine such as Times or Gourmet should be a team of people with different ethnic background and knowledge of food will be a review of much more credibilty for the readers than the present situation. (This topic was on FG'S posting on understanding the unknown food)

If budgets are constraint, too bad for the small news papers or mags.

Given the talent of the EGulleter's will make an excellent team of reviewers.

Fun

[indiagirl]

In terms of number 2, you're making a theoretical argument. And there's no question it's the intuitive argument. What I'm asking is whether reality supports it. What I find interesting is the general lack of diversity in restaurant reviewers' conclusions. For most restaurants that get reviewed, the critical community comes across as relatively unified: plus or minus a star here or there, maybe some disagreement about specific dishes, but ultimately unified. And the unity exists among the reviewers who go once and the reviewers who go five times, and also among those who dine anonymously and those who don't.

FG, to point 1 - I agree it's not practically possible - hence my suggestion about adressing the most popular meal/meal of restaurant's choice. But I agree that dinner is typically the most "complex" food event and would allow for the most multi-faceted review.

Moving on to the far more interesting point you made quoted above. Living in a Midwestern small town where all the restaurant reviews in our local rag fall in the range of sublime restaurant vs. mediocre restaurant but here is what is praiseworthy about it, since the average sensitive reviewer just cannot be all out negative about something, I find myself lacking in experience in the area of comparative criticism.

What is the eGullet opinion regarding explanations for clustered, unified reviews? Do you think that they stem from the fact that:

a. restaurants are, indeed, consistent

b. restaurant reviewers suffer from insecurity-Emperor's new clothes- socio political issues like everyone else

[Fat Guy]

I think it's just that, among knowledgeable and experienced diners who focus on food as the primary criterion for judging a restaurant, the overwhelming majority of restaurants aren't particularly susceptible to much of a range of opinion. It happens, but for the most part the range of opinion is in a pretty tight cluster of data points around an average. When I sit around with such a group -- especially if it's a bunch of other critics -- there's not that much disagreement. You can talk about 20 restaurants and everybody has pretty much the same assessment of the food, except maybe there's one person who happens to have been very unlucky or very lucky (or is somehow biased). But then you get to a place like Ducasse and the discussion grinds to a halt. That's because the discussion isn't really about food anymore. It's mostly about the value/price question, Ducasse's alleged arrogance, various species of resentment, etc.

[Steve Plotnicki]

But then you get to a place like Ducasse and the discussion grinds to a halt. That's because the discussion isn't really about food anymore. It's mostly about the value/price question, Ducasse's alleged arrogance, various species of resentment, etc.

Fat Guy - I half agree with this. With ADNY, it's really a two step process and price is secondary. What makes ADNY so controversial is the fact that it seems so ordinary to people (and I have italicized because I do not want to argue whether it is ordinary or not, just what many people come away with.) When you add the greatly increased cost, then it begins to revolve around other issues like arrogance. But I assure you if most people left feeling that the meal was more delciious then other restaurants, no one would think that Ducasse was arrogant etc.

Otherwise I agree with Lesley. Different restaurants take a different number of vivists until you understand them. Steakhouses can usually be mastered in one vists. For a place like Trio I think you need to go three or four times. There is so much to take in.

[Fat Guy]

Maybe. I still think the conclusion of "ordinariness" is something that happens against the backdrop of price, expectations, and all the other issues that poisoned the early discussions of Ducasse in New York. I'd like to see a controlled experiment where we found some educated gourmets who were stranded in the Outback since 2000 so they never heard of ADNY. Then we'd take them to ADNY and not show them the prices or tell them anything about the place. I'd like to know how they'd react. The critical consensus has a tendency to gel eventually anyway, though. At this point Ducasse has his four stars from the Times and most of the early detractors have put in their good reviews.

In terms of number of visits, the other thing to remember is the value of research. For example, if you performed the same under-a-rock experiment with Peter Luger, and you refused to listen to any advice or take any cues, there's always a chance you wouldn't even order the porterhouse on a first visit. But if you talk to the people who have been there, and you focus on the way the menu is laid out, and you look at what other people are eating, and you communicate with the waiter, etc., you can make one visit much more productive. At that point, the only thing to be gained by additional visits is a bit of insurance against inconsistency -- and, statistically, I'm not sure that three visits establishes much one way or the other anyway. It's also worth noting, in favor of the original point raised here, that Luger's is one of those places where the ultimate piece of information is exactly that you should go for lunch and not dinner. So this is a place where the critics' dinner bias represents a disadvantage.

[indiagirl]

I'd like to see a controlled experiment where we found some educated gourmets who were stranded in the Outback since 2000 so they never heard of ADNY. Then we'd take them to ADNY and not show them the prices or tell them anything about the place. I'd like to know how they'd react.

Would someone who has lived in the Midwest since 1992 and only barely just heard about ADNY and definitely completely missed the controversy serve as a satisfactory guinea pig?

Aw, c'mon FG.

[Wilfrid]

Is another factor the likelihood that the overwhelming majority of readers are not actually going to use the review like a consumer report? I suspect that, like book and theater reviews, most readers read for pleasure or casual interest. They may use restaurant guides to help choose where to dine, but I wonder how much stanb-alone reviews are used like this on a regular basis. If my premise is right, there seems to be no need for a reviewer to do any more than is necessary to produce a readable, entertaining and reasonably fair piece of criticism.

[Fat Guy]

The overwhelming majority of readers of Consumer Reports aren't going to use any given review to purchase anything either. And Consumer Reports doesn't even try to be readable.