L.A. Times article on Zagat

[arkestra]

If you haven't seen today's L.A. Times food section, there is a nice (IMO) article by David Shaw about the Zagat guide. The title -- "Can you believe Zagat? Not Always" -- is probably a good description of the article's contents.

Here's the link:

L.A. Times article on Zagat

(Note: You may have to register to view the article. There is no cost.)

People may have different opinions, but I believe the article is right on. Still, like David Shaw, I buy the guide almost every year, primarily to use as telephone directory. If I really want to find out about a restaurant, I'd rather ask people on this list.

[hollywood]

Still, like David Shaw, I buy the guide almost every year, primarily to use as  telephone directory.  If I really want to find out about a restaurant, I'd rather ask people on this list.

Do the survey online and you'll get a free copy (well, depending on the value you put on your time). And to the extent enough folks do this, perhaps the ratings will become more realistic. Also, now that they've divided into geographic areas, maybe there will be less tendency for people to vote for places outside their area that they haven't been to in years (which have often declined in quality).

[arkestra]

Do the survey online and you'll get a free copy (well, depending on the value you put on your time).  And to the extent enough folks do this, perhaps the ratings will become more realistic. 

Actually, I think you would get somewhat more realistic ratings if people didn't get a free guide for completing the survey. That way, you would have people who care (and some who want to skew the ratings in favor of a particular restaurant).

[hollywood]

Actually, I think you would get somewhat more realistic ratings if people didn't get a free guide for completing the survey.  That way, you would have people who care (and some who want to skew the ratings in favor of a particular restaurant).

You may be right but I doubt they'd get nearly as many surveys this way. And being able to say that thousands participated appears to be one of their goals/selling points.

[alanamoana]

good article.

with regard to the safeguards which are supposedly in place to offset vote stuffing, i personally worked for a restaurant owner who mandated that all people in his employ had to vote positively for our restaurant. not that there was any penalty, but can you believe the bs?!

zagat's is definitely a good resource guide for general information (address, hours, payment info, etc.) but not much more than that. i almost never look at the numbers.

[mixmaster b]

I think the points he makes are good, and I agree that some of the ratings in the new LA guide are a joke. (Do people really think the food at the Ivy is good? Mr Chows? Ugh!)

However, I still love the guides. I have discovered many good places by using them (Jitlada, George's at the Cove, Troquet, Guelegatza, Chinois on Main), especially when I was new to LA. And I think they are great for travel--especially when you don't have an e-gullet list with you. I have had great luck with the guides--there are some dissapointments, for sure, but I am still a fan.

[eliotmorgan]

Zagat ratings are unreliable because many of the reviewers haven’t eaten at the restaurants they rate. Zagat asks for no proof and you’re free to pull any answer out of your rear end. For some reason people feel completely comfortable rating restaurants that they’ve heard others talk about have seen pretty pictures of but have never been to. It is, however, a handy restaurant address and phone book.

[Fat Guy]

"Zagat says several safeguards are built into the process to prevent ballot-stuffing, and I'm inclined to believe him."

In the absence of any elaboration, this would certainly seem to be the weakest journalistic link in the story.

[SWoodyWhite]

As I've mentioned in the "other" L. A. Zagat thread, one improvement in this years guide is the inclusion of websites for many of the restaurants listed. My estimate would put those with websites at about half the total, but I won't be sure until I finish my totally anal-retentive transfer of the data to a spreadsheat/database. (I obviously have too much time on my hands. )

The advantage of the website listing is that it gives the readers a chance to check menus and other information, as opposed to Merrill Shindler's "haiku" of seven or eight lines of quotes. Don't get me wrong, I've met Shindler and found him a very nice, enjoyably personable fellow, but the reviews contain as much relevant information as can be found in the average newspaper horoscope. Even a PR blurb can give the browser a better idea if it's a restaurant he/she would like to try.

[russ parsons]

"Zagat says several safeguards are built into the process to prevent ballot-stuffing, and I'm inclined to believe him."

In the absence of any elaboration, this would certainly seem to be the weakest journalistic link in the story.

In fairness to David, that is a column--an expression of opinion--and not a strictly factual piece. We had talked about that exact line and he did struggle with it. The problem is, to print the methods they say they use to detect cheating would be to enable people to find ways to get around them.

[arkestra]

The advantage of the website listing is that it gives the readers a chance to check menus and other information, as opposed to Merrill Shindler's "haiku" of seven or eight lines of quotes.  Don't get me wrong, I've met Shindler and found him a very nice, enjoyably personable fellow, but the reviews contain as much relevant information as can be found in the average newspaper horoscope.  Even a PR blurb can give the browser a better idea if it's a restaurant he/she would like to try.

Yes, those "haikus"/comments are pretty worthless. I've always felt the quotes are assembled to create an overly rosy picture. Even the seemingly negative comments often create a positive image or generate interest in a restaurant (e.g., "crowded," "too cool," "waiters with attitudes," etc.). In recent years, I've also been wondering to what extent Merrill tries to select more favorable quotes for those restaurants that advertise on, or provide giveaway meals for his restaurant show/infomercial.

[hollywood]

One of Zagat's stats that I find dubious is the claim that the over 6,000 people who participated in the LA survey "dined out" (implying dinner) an average of 3.7 times per week, thus the survey is "based on roughly 1.2 million meals annually." I think we'd either have more restaurants or fewer of them would go out of business if those facts were accurate. How can they check that claim? Why do I suspect that many of those 1.2 million meals are fast food lunches if in fact they happened at all?

[Dave the Cook]

. . . to print the methods they say they use to detect cheating would be to enable people to find ways to get around them.

The problem I have is that Shaw seems to invoke faith more than fact. Had he simply said what you said above, and included that he had discussed these precautions with Zagat, I would have found his "belief" a lot more credible, and he wouldn't have had to give away any secrets.

This is not to slam the article, which I thought was pretty good.

[jhlurie]

"Zagat says several safeguards are built into the process to prevent ballot-stuffing, and I'm inclined to believe him."

In the absence of any elaboration, this would certainly seem to be the weakest journalistic link in the story.

Well, people at Zagat's had to feel pretty defensive around a guy named "Shaw".

Some light reading...

Some eG discussion of this light reading.

[hollywood]

"Zagat says several safeguards are built into the process to prevent ballot-stuffing, and I'm inclined to believe him."

In the absence of any elaboration, this would certainly seem to be the weakest journalistic link in the story.

Well, people at Zagat's had to feel pretty defensive around a guy named "Shaw".

Some light reading...

Some eG discussion of this light reading.

Suggesting again the need for a David Shaw Q & A. Or perhaps a lighthearted Shaw vs. Shaw smackdown. This could be a cable show. Lawyer vs. journalist. East Coast vs. West Coast. They could take up where Nina and Alan left off. Let's see: Steve's first guest would be Rachel. David's would be Piero.

[Fat Guy]

. . . to print the methods they say they use to detect cheating would be to enable people to find ways to get around them.

The problem I have is that Shaw seems to invoke faith more than fact.

I have that problem too -- Shaw emphatically didn't say "they told me what they do, they asked that we not print it, but it seems reasonable to me" -- but the larger problem is that the Zagats simply do not take the obvious precautions: they don't make any effort whatsoever to substantiate restaurant visits -- no spot-checking of receipts, not even a basic inquiry as to date of visit or any details that would make it a little harder to fake -- and they have migrated towards Internet polling, which is radically susceptible to abuse. Moreover, as far as I know they have never subjected their methods to an independent audit, and I doubt they ever will.

[hollywood]

Moreover, as far as I know they have never subjected their methods to an independent audit, and I doubt they ever will.

You can bank on it, er, they can bank on it.

[ExtraMSG]

As a political science major who used to help professors with important surveys and polls, surprisingly, people try to answer quite honestly on such things. They don't often lie about where they've been. If they are willing to take the time, they generally feel an obligation to do what's right. Doesn't mean there aren't exceptions, but they're relatively few and don't really skew the results. Often they're offset, too, by people who are doing the same dishonest thing, but with a different opinion. So you have people who have never been to Spago who say its great because they heard so and so has been there. Then you have people who say its terrible because they heard so and so went there. As for ballot stuffing, who knows. Still, if you have a staff of 20 and there are 1000 or more votes, those 20 aren't going to be able to move the results much. And probably the bigger the place, the more votes they're getting.

I think Zagat's problems show themselves more the larger the city, or the more segregated a city. People who never eat in Manhattan regularly may have a very different picture of what good food is than people who eat in Queens. And if a lot of the people who are voting don't eat in various parts of New York regularly, then really you can only consider the numbers as valid relative to the other restaurants in that eating zone.

LA, being so spread out and having such bad traffic, may have that problem. I know that even towns like Dallas do. Here in Portland, I don't think it's much of a problem. Most of the good restaurants are within 20 minutes of each other. And you can get most anywhere within 30 minutes. I even live pretty far out in a suburb and can get to most any Portland restaurant within 30 minutes (45 during rush hour). Unfortunately, Zagat isn't doing Portland anymore. It's only doing the big cities where the problems in the system seem to be more apparent.

All that said, there's still nothing as democratic as Zagat. Sure, it has its shortcomings, but in many ways its superior to the traditional guidebooks like Mobil, AAA, or even whatever your local paper might put out. Those are all from a narrow set of people, with narrow backgrounds and narrow criteria. Zagat is more narrow than it could be, but its still relatively democratic and so serves quite a different purpose from the guidebooks. Not to mention its probably broken down and categorized better than anything else out there.

[jhlurie]

The weakness in your "democratic" scenario ExtraMSG, is that the Zagats choose which entries make their ways into the books in the first place.

Also, if you read FatShaw's article (as opposed to non-FatShaw), he points out some other weaknesses in the system which do a pretty good job of negating the rest of the value of the guide.

It's FAR from democratic. It just has a nice democratic disguise.

[russ parsons]

It's FAR from democratic.  It just has a nice democratic disguise.

and what isn't? forgive me for being bitter, but i'm the one with an action hero for a governor.

[hollywood]

forgive me for being bitter, but i'm the one with an action hero for a governor.

Alas.

[arkestra]

As a political science major who used to help professors with important surveys and polls, surprisingly, people try to answer quite honestly on such things.  They don't often lie about where they've been.  If they are willing to take the time, they generally feel an obligation to do what's right.

I am guessing not many people review a restaurant they haven't been to. But I believe there is another problem -- many people simply don't remember (or care to think) when they were last at a particular place. So when the restaurant name pops up on the survey, they'll say "oh, yeah, that's a great place" or whatever, without thinking they were last there 3 years ago.

A major problem with the Zagat methodology is the narrow scale they use (the article said 1 to 3). I think such a scale is designed to prevent real differences in quality from being reflected in the final results. (A scale of 1 to 10 would be much better. They could then multiple the average by 10 to produce a final score on a scale of 1 to 100.)

Still, it is a useful guide and a good starting place. Besides, it's only $10 and it gives people like us something to discuss/argue about.

[ExtraMSG]

In response to Steven Shaw's article on Zagat:

Perhaps most surprising of all, respondents to the Zagat survey are not required to document--through, for example, copies of receipts--that they have actually eaten the meals they claim to be evaluating. ...Online voting, recently introduced, will no doubt make it even easier to cast fictitious and/or ill-considered ballots.

I've covered this above. I think there isn't much to worry about. And I think the online voting is by subscribers only.

Another problem arises with time lag. As any professional critic can testify, accuracy in a restaurant review requires taking careful notes and then writing relatively quickly: after a few days, much specific recollection will be lost (this applies to music and dance reviews as well).

I actually disagree with this. When I go on trips I do take notes and I think they're helpful. But I actually like to wait a couple days at least before reporting on a restaurant because I think it allows the experience to sink it and for me to gain some perspective. I feel the same way about another love of mine, movies. Immediate reactions with the experience most fresh in the mind aren't necessarily the most true or accurate reactions. Sometimes those experiences need to settle. eg, I went on a trip this summer to SF with a "foodie" -- for lack of a better term -- friend of mine. We hit several of the top spots, French Laundry, Chez Panisse, Fifth Floor, Masa's, Gary Danko, Yank Sing, Slanted Door, and some others. However, what has made the most lasting impression was a huarache con tinga from a little taqueria dive in Oakland. It's the flavor he most yearns for. If he had just given his reaction after each meal, French Laundry might win out. There's a cleverness to the dishes and the presentation. But if he were having his last meal and it had to be from the Bay Area, I have a feeling he'd be choosing that tinga.

Similarly, Brill's Content reported recently that Zagat employees themselves are sometimes sent to evaluate restaurants that open near to press time, thereby vitiating the whole point of the survey system.

I don't think they give ratings to them, though. This is counter-democratic, but probably a necessary evil (though not really an evil, just an internal contradiction).

As for the rest of the article where he attacks democracy itself, I find several points of disagreement.

1) the two (or three) methods aren't mutually exclusive. You can have Mobil and Michelin and NY Times reviews of restaurants by critics and find them useful and good within a context and do the same for Zagat within a context. Both take filtering by the person reading them for them to be truly useful. I doubt Fat Guy would argue that any reader should just blindly follow the critics. I also doubt he would argue that burgers, bbq, pizza, and the like, should be avoided because it's not "good food" or that it's only "mediocre food" because it can only max out at 1 or 2 stars in a Mobil guidebook. When reading Mobil's ratings I try to a) use them first for finding haute cuisine restaurant experiences, b) take into account that places that aren't formal will get lower ratings, and c) compare within cuisines and "genres", and d) not expect to see a dive with great food accurately represented on just a flavor basis. When I use Zagat, I generally first think about what I'm looking for that night in a dining experience, such as a romantic place for me and my wife, to be waited on hand and foot, a certain cuisine, some great food at a low price, or whatever. I use its advantages in cross-referencing to the best of my ability. With newspaper and magazine (and internet such as Chowhound and eGullet) reviews, I use them to learn about new places, keep up on trends, and to look at specific places I'm thinking about going either because of Zagat or Mobil or because of word of mouth (assuming they have archives). Each has a solid place that does not exclude the other. I think they are complimentary because they have different approaches.

2) Consumer Reports is a bad analogy for several reasons. a) They have a more objective task seeing if something breaks when you hit it with a hammer or whatever; b) any opinion by an expert is by nature subjective and so is Consumer Reports even on their ratings of things which should be by nature more objective. Take for instance their ratings of cars which rely heavily on comfort, feel, handling, etc, which are not objective criteria. I strongly disagree with their rating of Haagen Daz's vanilla ice cream and have had a difficult time finding people who like it when you sit down and do a taste test between it and other leading brands. c) when dealing with taste, the most objective measure is what most people like; that may not make it the best, but it's the most objective.

3) As for the attacks on the Zagats themselves, it's just ad hominems that have nothing to do with the guide. Any reviewer can be a total asshole and their review can still be quality stuff. I may hate most of the filmmakers and musicians out there, but still love their work. It's a dangerous game trying to prove the work of someone is bad because that person is bad. And anyway, is what the Zagat's allegedly do any worse than what any other critic does? (btw, if you want to be seated within 10 minutes of the reservation, move to Portland; I've never had to wait for my served table more than 10 minutes.)

[hollywood]

Thinking about this a little more, Zagat is like Restaurants For Dummies. If you know nothing, you can learn a lot in a hurry up to a certain level. Some never go beyond that. But folks who post here, generally have gone beyond; some, way beyond.

[ExtraMSG]

hollywood, you can say the same thing about any guidebook. But the problem is that when I'm travelling, I'm essentially a dummie for that city and a guidebook is a good place to get up to speed. Before I go to a city, I generally look through Chowhound and eGullet, Mobil, Zagat, and local newspapers, if they have anything useful. Cross-referencing there can be a good start. If I ignored Zagat, though, I might miss some things that wouldn't be recognized in Mobil (or Michelin in Europe) as "starworthy".