Zagat: Grocery is the 7th best in NY

[Bux]

Actually, most people who eat, don't really care much at all what they eat, or at least they don't care with any discrimination. Let's forget most people. Most people aren't reading eGullet. People with a real interst in food are.

Rock critics, jazz critics and classical music critics all publish reviews in the NY Times and the often all publish on the same day. Likewise the NY Times maintains restaurant reviews at two different levels of pricing. Earlier in this thread I've argued for separate listings for taco places, burger places, barbeque places and find restaurants precisely because any attempt to compare them to a single standard will lead the diner astray. Zagat attempts to lump all classes of restaurants in one guide under one heading. That either leads to what may be referred to as elitism where a modest burger place is not in the same league as a haute cuisine restaurant. It's not that the tablecloths aren't white, or that they aren't there, it's that the food is far simpler and must on a single scale be rated lower or be misleading. Or you could rate all restaurants on the scale of what they're trying to accomplish.

So a great burger place gets the same rating as a great luxury restaurant. Clearly, if two restaurants rate a 27, I'm going to expect the same sort of food and I'll be disappointed. One should look at any single guide and know what to expect from each restaurant relative to any other restaurant in the guide. It's clear from the two articles/reviews in the Times, that this isn't the case with Zagat.

An argument that says a barbeque place shouldn't be rated alongside a haute cuisine restaurant is an good one because it leads to guides that are less confusing. An arguement that says a barbeque place and a haute cuisine restaurant should each be rated on separate scales and then placed in the same guide alongside each other is an argument for publishing a confusing guide.

The reason Michelin works, is because they have a standard to which they try to adhere. Zagat is working without a standard. By the way, the Michelin guide is a bit of a red herring here because until recently, all restaurants in France followed the same pattern. In Michlin's defense however, it should be noted that Michelin provides many symbols in addition to the stars. Why is it that those who don't use Michelin, only know the stars. Michelin has a symbol for a reasonably priced meal that offers great value and another one that lets you know the restaurant offers a three course meal for less than a certain price. That price rises with inflation and I don't recall what it is this year. It also does claim the lowest priced category is a good value, only that you can eat an accpetable meal for under a certain price. Michelin also has a special symbol denoting a tapas bar in Spain. It's not nearly as rigid as some believe.

My point here is only to say that if I pick up a guidebook, any single guide book that rates by stars or numbers, there should be consistency at what sort of restaurant gets a certain number. It's called communication. Fodor's and Frommer's do not offer ratings by numbers in the way Zagat does and I'd note that Michelin does not rate the vast majority of the restaurants in their guide. All they do is list the restaurant and give its price range with some assurance, that those prices are reasonable for the food.

[ExtraMSG]

Zagat attempts to lump all classes of restaurants in one guide under one heading.

That's just plainly false. I'm going to be a little bit of an asshole here, but have you looked at a Zagat guide? Zagat divides its entries by food, service, decor, price, and cuisine. If you merely look at the listing of Top Food Ranking, a) you're an idiot, and b) you're ignoring the vast majority of the book. Zagat gives no unified rating for a restaurant. Michelin and Mobil only give a unified rating for a restaurant. No guidebook gives as much context, and context is the key to truth, as the Zagat guide. Mobil and Michelin, Frommer's and Fodor's, Chowhound and eGullet all have their place. But so does Zagat. I see no clear advantage to Mobil or Michelin guides except if you're looking for haute cuisine. Now, if you want to discuss whether haute cuisine is clearly superior to street food or comfort food or whatever, that's an ontological argument not unlike trying to prove God's existence. The more you already believe it, the easier it is to prove. But there aren't many facts to support it (just as there aren't many facts to support the contrary argument, either.)

Zagat is democracy in action. You may not like democracy. You may not like that Arnold Schwarzenneger is governor of Kahleeforneeah. You may not like that Titanic made more money at the box office than whatever won the academy award that year. You may not like that a pizza from Grimaldi's is not considered significantly worse food than whatever Ducasse puts in front of you. But that's democracy. The people have spoken. After that, it's just your opinion. Zagat has a standard. The standard is what people say they like as opposed to a couple self-proclaimed experts.

[jhlurie]

Zagat is democracy in action.  You may not like democracy.  You may not like that Arnold Schwarzenneger is governor of Kahleeforneeah.  You may not like that Titanic made more money at the box office than whatever won the academy award that year.  You may not like that a pizza from Grimaldi's is not considered significantly worse food than whatever Ducasse puts in front of you.  But that's democracy.  The people have spoken.

See argumentation for this point here.

[sammy]

Bux, I respectfully disagree. Zagat may be lumping overall food scores together but anyone that takes the time to read the short write-up with each listing should be able to recognize that there is a difference in the level food served. No one will expect the same dining experience at Soup International as they would at ADNY. Everyone should be smart enough to compare the food ratings of Grimaldi's and Lombardi's when looking for pizza and not Grimaldi's and ADNY to decide where to have dinner on Saturday night. I haven't yet seen the new guide but I can't ever remember using Zagat and been overly suprised with the level of dining experience from what I expected from the guide. I may not have agreed with all of the ratings. If readers can't see the difference, they should be banished to eating the RB Sandwich at Burger King.

That being said, their methodology that allows The Grocery to be the 7th favorite restaurant is clearly flawed.

[slkinsey]

That being said, their methodology that allows The Grocery to be the 7th favorite restaurant is clearly flawed.

Is it the 7th favorite restaurant or the 7th best restaurant or the 7th highest rated restaurant? There is a salient difference between these three. A 7th favorite ranking does not necessarily imply "better" or "higher" food than the 20th ranked restaurant.

One must also mention the "Zagat Effect" -- which is the real flaw in their methodology.

[sammy]

I meant 7th Best as was quoted in the NY Times.

[Pan]

Your milage obviously varies, but I've found Michelin a hell of a lot more reliable than Zagat. Just the fact that it's got a consistent set of reviews across the board makes it better. I mean it's great that a connoisseur gives Le Bernardin a 28 and some kid who's never eaten in a restaurant with tablecloths rates a local dive as 27 throws the whole thing off beyond any recognizable value to me.

I take it you've never seen a Zagat survey, Bux? Part of the problem with the structure of their surveys (at least as of a couple of years ago, the last time I completed one) is that surveyors do not have a 0-30 scale. Instead, one is limited to a scale of 0-3, which is arguably rather inadequate for the very broad selection of restaurants one might want to rate. How Zagat's comes up with its 0-30 ratings from thousands of 0-3 surveys is a mystery to me.

As for Zagat's being "democracy in action," who gets to pick the text describing the restaurants, and who chooses which restaurants to include - first of all in the surveys and then in the finished product? Is that purely a majority vote? If it is, things have changed a great deal in the very recent past. And that's not to mention egregious cases like a description of a restaurant that a Zagat's guide said was "better than its rating." Also, I used to live in a big apartment building on the Upper West Side where someone always left a whole pile of blank Zagat surveys in the mailroom. Do you think piles of Zagat surveys were left on the ground floors of little tenements? Well, to my knowledge, they weren't. And I have to wonder how many surveys made it to the "Outer Boroughs," when the surveys were still all paper.

Now that submissions are (all? mostly?) via the Internet, has anyone noticed any lessening of the extreme Manhattan bias (including a somewhat less extreme but to me laughable Upper West Side bias) that used to mar the Zagat Guide?

Edited October 23, 2003 by Pan (log)

[Fat Guy]

Zagat has repeated its nonsensical mantra of "democracy" so many times that even intelligent people who should know better are starting to believe it.

Democracy, according to Merriam-Webster and any other source most anyone would care to cite, is:

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

The Zagat surveys are not democracy, nor can surveys in general be classified as democracy. They are not even in the same conceptual category of anything that could be called democracy. They are popularity contests, they are public opinion polls. Nobody is voting. Nobody is being elected. No legislation is being passed. No meaningful governance is emerging. Rather, results of a popularity contest are being assembled and sold as a book. I hope everybody realizes the difference between that and democracy.

Nor can stuffing the ballot box, manipulating survey forms, concealing methodology, etc., ever be considered elements of democracy.

Now, of course, there is a usage of the term "democratic" that means (again, Merriam-Webster):

3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people <democratic art>

4 : favoring social equality : not snobbish

And in that sense, there is a "democratic" facade to Zagat that is shamelessly exploited by its publishers. But it is just that: a facade. The "broad masses" have never been to Daniel. The "broad masses" don't buy the Zagat books. The "broad masses" eat at McDonald's and Olive Garden and never, ever read restaurant reviews or restaurant guidebooks. Zagat is not "democratic." Rather, it is a worst-case scenario of ignorant elites: it reflects the tastes of the elite but not of connoisseurs; the tastes of the middle class but not of people who know what they're talking about. It's a collection of second-tier knowledge that perpetuates the mediocre tastes that are the enemies of progress in fine dining.

Michelin, at least, is actually elitist: the people performing the analyses are expert, trained, knowledgeable, etc. Michelin is not without its problems -- it is shamelessly political -- but at least the information sources are people like eGulleters.

Has everybody read my essay about Zagat? If not I'll post the link.

[Bux]

Zagat attempts to lump all classes of restaurants in one guide under one heading.

That's just plainly false. I'm going to be a little bit of an asshole here, but have you looked at a Zagat guide? Zagat divides its entries by food, service, decor, price, and cuisine. If you merely look at the listing of Top Food Ranking, a) you're an idiot, and b) you're ignoring the vast majority of the book.

Let's not confuse a horizontal rating with a vertical rating. That Zagat separates the food, the service and the ambiance is good, but it doesn't change the fact that the food ratings for burger places, pizzerias and haute cuisine places are all on the same scale.

Zagat gives no unified rating for a restaurant.  Michelin and Mobil only give a unified rating for a restaurant.  No guidebook gives as much context,

I'd take issue with that. For one thing it's too blanket a statement and if you're limiting the discussion to the books you choose, you're stacking the deck. The GaultMillau guide in France not only rates restaurants on a 20 point scale (actually nine or ten points as no scores are given below 11) and includes far more text on each restaurant than does Zagat for the least important restaurants. As the rating increases, so does the relative amount of text. It also offers a greater number of symbols indicating all things related to food and facilities. Anyway, the short blubs in Zagat, which are not democratic at all, do not add to the reliability of the guide.

and context is the key to truth, as the Zagat guide. Mobil and Michelin, Frommer's and Fodor's, Chowhound and eGullet all have their place.  But so does Zagat.  I see no clear advantage to Mobil or Michelin guides except if you're looking for haute cuisine.

That's an interesting statement. On the whole, I've found Michelin guides both in France and Spain, more useful at the unstarred level. Our working relationship with Michelin appears to be quite different. Over the years, the red guide has proven invaluable in finding local places for lunch that do not serve haute cuisine. Either you only eat in haute cuisine restaurants in countries where you use the Michelin guides, or you've missed their real function, although some would argue their best feature is the inner city maps that show one way streets.

Now, if you want to discuss whether haute cuisine is clearly superior to street food or comfort food or whatever,

That's the last thing I want to discuss and it's possible you're misreading my arguments for separate parallel guides for radically different types of restaurants, though I clearly believe that a neighborhood restaurant and a world class destination restaurant belong in the same guide with different ratings.

Perhaps a misunderstanding has arisen as it's never been clearly stated whether Grocery is seventh in popularity or in points for food.

that's an ontological argument not unlike trying to prove God's existence.  The more you already believe it, the easier it is to prove.  But there aren't many facts to support it (just as there aren't many facts to support the contrary argument, either.)

Yes and not part of this discussion

Zagat is democracy in action.  You may not like democracy.  You may not like that Arnold Schwarzenneger is governor of Kahleeforneeah.  You may not like that Titanic made more money at the box office than whatever won the academy award that year.  You may not like that a pizza from Grimaldi's is not considered significantly worse food than whatever Ducasse puts in front of you.  But that's democracy.  The people have spoken.  After that, it's just your opinion.  Zagat has a standard.  The standard is what people say they like as opposed to a couple self-proclaimed experts.

Actually Zagat is not all that democratic. For it to be truly democratic, all of the participants should have had equal access to all of the restaurants. Not only access, but experience. If in fact people are voting with different experiences and different scales in mind, it's just a poor survey with no scientific standing. On, and I haven't called anyone an asshole. Just to be clear.

[Bux]

I take it you've never seen a Zagat survey, Bux? Part of the problem with the structure of their surveys (at least as of a couple of years ago, the last time I completed one) is that surveyors do not have a 0-30 scale. Instead, one is limited to a scale of 0-3, which is arguably rather inadequate for the very broad selection of restaurants one might want to rate. How Zagat's comes up with its 0-30 ratings from thousands of 0-3 surveys is a mystery to me.

Actually, I have seen the survey form, or at least I saw one a few years ago, but I coudn't raise the interest to fill it out--or I was loathe to be a part of a survey whose final results I couldn't see as worthwhile. I was also troubled by the 3 point scale. I couldn't, in good conscience, fit all my restaurant experiences in three classes. Moreover, I suspected that many participants with less dining experience, or with experience within a smaller range, would be sure to use 3 as their top number, negating the difference I saw between a restaurant such as Daniel and and one to which I would never return.

For the most part I agree with your criticism of the rather undemocratic nature of the survey. Although I don't know of any restaurant that's stuffed the ballot box beyond what's reported here, but I can remember my childhood, when someone in my neighborhood knew someone running for Miss Reingold. All of us little kids ran around to the grocery stores snitching pads of ballots and returning the ballots to the boxes with our selection marked. It seemed like a fair game and we played it with enthusiasm.

The last issue of the guide I have is from 2001. I haven't gotten a new one since I've changed banks. My old bank used to send me a copy, but they also screwed me out of 2% whenever I made a withdrawal from an ATM in a foreign country.

[Pan]

My old bank used to send me a copy, but they also screwed me out of 2% whenever I made a withdrawal from an ATM in a foreign country.

That's really evil! I never knew any bank did that.

[ExtraMSG]

In response to Fat Guy:

And in that sense, there is a "democratic" facade to Zagat that is shamelessly exploited by its publishers. But it is just that: a facade. The "broad masses" have never been to Daniel. The "broad masses" don't buy the Zagat books. The "broad masses" eat at McDonald's and Olive Garden and never, ever read restaurant reviews or restaurant guidebooks. Zagat is not "democratic." Rather, it is a worst-case scenario of ignorant elites: it reflects the tastes of the elite but not of connoisseurs; the tastes of the middle class but not of people who know what they're talking about. It's a collection of second-tier knowledge that perpetuates the mediocre tastes that are the enemies of progress in fine dining.

And this differs from every other democracy how?

Was the founding of the US a democratic process? Was the 19th Century US a democracy? It excluded blacks and women, and most voters were land-owners, in other words, elites. If you go back to the origin of the word, Ancient Greece, you'll see that by your understanding of the word their incarnation did not fit. Slaves could not vote. Those without land could not vote. Today, voting increases in the United States according to wealth and education. And often less than half of people vote in a election. Yet it is still a democratic process. Democracy is, breaking down the word, the rule of the people. It can be applied, even if only metaphorically, to whatever we want. Sometimes the best we can do in using such a word is to indicate things that are such relatively speaking. Zagat is, relatively speaking, democratic, when compared to Mobil and Michelin and any other guide out there. This is not a judgment on whether Zagat is good, mind you, just a description of it. Plato rightly saw two sides to democracy and thankfully the United States is a democratic Republic, not a pure democracy. But because we are not a pure democracy does not mean th word doesn't apply to our government. And our government is no more a facade for democracy than Zagat is. Reality isn't ones and zeroes. It's okay to something is something even if its only a fuzzy representation of our concept of it.

You seem to think it's a piece of crap. That's fine. I think it's a useful, though predictably flawed, guide that makes a mostly successful attempt at surveying diners opinions on restaurants.

In Response to Bux:

Let's not confuse a horizontal rating with a vertical rating. That Zagat separates the food, the service and the ambiance is good, but it doesn't change the fact that the food ratings for burger places, pizzerias and haute cuisine places are all on the same scale.

Well, in that sense, it is what you make it. If you want to ignore the context for the food rating, that's your business. I doubt many people do, though. I always say to myself as I look at it, "What's the best pizza place in Zagat?" and look at pizza places. Then I might look at the prices for places and note that a place gets a 27 food rating but only charges on average $25 per person, low for that kind of rating. To me that says that the food might be rated up because it's seen as a good value and people are less disappointed with the amount they paid. That sort of thing. I think that's the realistic process. I think only idiots would look at the ratings and say everything that gets a 27 must be equal in quality (whatever they mean by that word). That would just show an immense ignorance in how people relate to food and their dining experiences.

I've found Michelin guides both in France and Spain, more useful at the unstarred level. Our working relationship with Michelin appears to be quite different.

But the unstarred level, like Fodor's and Frommer's, gives you little basis for comparison. You have to read all the reviews and interpret them correctly. Not that that's necessarily bad. But Zagat's way of doing things has its advantages.

Actually Zagat is not all that democratic. For it to be truly democratic, all of the participants should have had equal access to all of the restaurants. Not only access, but experience. If in fact people are voting with different experiences and different scales in mind, it's just a poor survey with no scientific standing. On, and I haven't called anyone an asshole. Just to be clear.

Believe me. I'm not arguing that Zagat couldn't be better. But my impression is that several of you on eGullet consider it good for little more than a directory of restaurants. I think it could be improved. I don't know that I agree with your suggestions. I don't know that we have to go about "educating" people in order for their opinions to be valid. They like what they like. And as someone who has given up trying to "educate" family and friends, I've realized that such attempts at education is to a large degree elitist because it's not a matter of them not knowing better, but of them truly not being interested or not liking what's offered. The masses don't ignore arthouse "films" and a good number of the Academy Award nominees because they don't know any better or haven't been marketed to properly. They don't see them because they're pretty sure they wouldn't like them. People who study music often love jazz, think of it as the highest form of music. But you can sit the average person down and force them to listen to jazz for hours and they still won't like it. There's no "educating" to be done because by-and-large the people won't like it regardless. The people who go into music and become experts are already inclined to like jazz. The people who study film, who go on to be film professionals and critics, already are predisposed to like arthouse flicks. The people who are on eGullet, and even the people who review in Zagat, are already pre-disposed to like [insert your favorite haute cuisine restaurant here]. I think it's a testament to its democratic nature that it does pull in pizza places and bbq and Mexican in the mid-20s. Like I said, I'll put a piece of Black's brisket, or Taco Loco's tinga, or lots of other specific comfort food dishes up against just about any dish that's served in front of you at [insert your favorite haute cuisine restaurant here].

(Try to name a scientific survey where you make sure everyone has the same experience. Or a poll. It would be considered unscientific if you did so.)

btw, I think I called myself an asshole, which doesn't bother me. I'm not mad at myself about it all. I'd read through this to make sure it's coherent, but I'd rather just deny everything later.

[Pan]

ExtraMSG:

I have a few responses to your latest post.

(1) If your argument is that Zagat's is a good guide for people who are happy with it, you are right. And then we can also say that McDonalds performs an important service for a lot of people. And candy corn is a good product for happy kids on Halloween. OK, accepted. And then?

(2) I hope you're not assuming that all of us would rather go to any old upscale restaurant than a good cheap eat. I don't go to expensive restaurants that often but have sometimes found them disappointing, and among the meals I remember as the greatest of my life, some were at expensive restaurants and some at cheap ones.

(3) One can have plenty of problems with Zagat based on things other than a presumption that the complexity or expense of the product being served should be considered in one's ratings. When I filled out Zagat surveys, I would give both Grand Sichuan and the old Jojo's 3's. But that may point out some of the problems with the 3-point system. 3 stood for "excellent," as I recall. 50 St. Grand Sichuan is excellent in my opinion, but I do think that a Vongerichten restaurant at its best would have deserved a 4 in a system in which 4 stands for a category above "excellent." And that's only partly because of the differences in service and (to a lesser extent) ambience, which are rated separately in a Zagat survey. The food was great in both places but I do think that, despite the apples-and-oranges aspects to comparing Sichuan-style food and French-influenced nouvelle cuisine, there was something extra in the degree of imagination and perfection that the pre-renovation Jojo used to serve up. Alright, perhaps that is partly complexity, but it's not complexity for it's own sake. Vongerichten used subtle mixtures based on essences of fruits and vegetables in season, and that created delicious tastes I haven't found elsewhere. In addition, desserts were fabulous at the old Jojo, and when I was too full to have dessert, I ordered a Muscat wine that was ambrosial. Of course, great desserts and great wines are not part of the experience at Grand Sichuan.

Now, on the other hand, if the dirt-cheap Kashmiri wedding food restaurant I ate at in Srinagar or the babi guling place I ate at in Denpasar could be transported to New York, I'd probably be singing a somewhat different tune.

But then, where are all the authentic Colombian and Mexican places in Jackson Heights to be found in Zagat? If such places were there, I think you'd have a much stronger argument that Zagat provides a good alternative for gourmets and connoiseurs. I daresay, most eGulleteers have little use for a guide to middlebrow food which the "average person" would like. And actually, I think that's partly a misunderstanding. I believe that there are many lovers of good food who get Zagat because they think it will be a reliable guide for them. Most of them probably do find places that satisfy them, but they could have gone to a more reliable source.

[Fat Guy]

Democracy is, breaking down the word, the rule of the people.  It can be applied, even if only metaphorically, to whatever we want.

Sure, if you want to refer to any expression of opinion by more than one person as democracy you can do it, but it renders the term meaningless. If anything where any group of people expresses a preference is democracy then everything short of absolute control by one person is democracy. The Michelin guide is democracy too, then: the inspectors express their preferences, those are tabulated and evaluated by a committee, and the results are published.

When somebody tries to sell you "democracy," beware. Rarely are you being sold choice, freedom, equality, a voice, or anything else loosely related to the metaphor.

[Bux]

In Response to Bux:

Let's not confuse a horizontal rating with a vertical rating. That Zagat separates the food, the service and the ambiance is good, but it doesn't change the fact that the food ratings for burger places, pizzerias and haute cuisine places are all on the same scale.

Well, in that sense, it is what you make it. If you want to ignore the context for the food rating, that's your business.

Nowhere have I said or implied I want to ignore the context. What I want is for the context to be clear. I don't want to see a 27 for pizza next to a 27 for haute cuisine lest it not be obvious that they're not in competition with each other.

I doubt many people do, though.  I always say to myself as I look at it, "What's the best pizza place in Zagat?" and look at pizza places.  Then I might look at the prices for places and note that a place gets a 27 food rating but only charges on average $25 per person, low for that kind of rating.  To me that says that the food might be rated up because it's seen as a good value and people are less disappointed with the amount they paid.  That sort of thing.  I think that's the realistic process.  I think only idiots would look at the ratings and say everything that gets a 27 must be equal in quality (whatever they mean by that word).  That would just show an immense ignorance in how people relate to food and their dining experiences.

I want an idiot proof guide where 27 means 27. If one restaurant gets a 27, I should be able to assume that another restaurant with 27 is the equal. Every restaurant is what it is. If every restaurant were scored according to its aims a good neighborhood restaurant is worth 27 and a good one star restaurant is worth 27 and a good two star restaurant is worth 27 and finally a good three star restaurant is worth 27 (in the three star class, of course). In the Michelin guide, an excellent neighborhood restaurant is a one star. It's much clearer than in Zagat where a 28 may be an excellent neighborhood restaurant and a 27 a very good world class restaurant. I find some absurdity in that.

Granted, I have no reason to expect most of the people who submit a Zagat survey to be in a position to offer me any advice on dining, but when I see prices for places and note that a place gets a 27 food rating but only charges on average $25 per person, low for that kind of rating, my assumption is not that the food might be rated up because it's seen as a good value, but that the surveyors may have no taste. So Zagat's inherent "democratic" flaws just get compounded by the rating system. The truth is that taste is highly subjective and I've met people who prefer Olive Garden to Babbo. Zagat's "strength" is that their vote counts as much as anyone qualified to be a Michelin inspector.

Moreover, it would seem that a restaurant with a rating of 27 that charges $50 should be a better value than a restaurant with a rating of 27 that charges $100. That's not the case here if two different standards exist for the same rating number.

I've found Michelin guides both in France and Spain, more useful at the unstarred level. Our working relationship with Michelin appears to be quite different.

But the unstarred level, like Fodor's and Frommer's, gives you little basis for comparison. You have to read all the reviews and interpret them correctly. Not that that's necessarily bad. But Zagat's way of doing things has its advantages.

You lose me here. There are no reviews to read in Michelin, but of course a good review by an intelligent reviewer will provide far more to go on that a numbered or starred rating.

Actually Zagat is not all that democratic. For it to be truly democratic, all of the participants should have had equal access to all of the restaurants. Not only access, but experience. If in fact people are voting with different experiences and different scales in mind, it's just a poor survey with no scientific standing. On, and I haven't called anyone an asshole. Just to be clear.

Believe me. I'm not arguing that Zagat couldn't be better. But my impression is that several of you on eGullet consider it good for little more than a directory of restaurants.

This is quite true. There's a very large circle of people who feel this way. I think you'll find that among people who take their meals very seriously, there's little respect for a guide that's a survey of opinion largely dependent on people who don't take food very seriously. Is that surprising?

I think it could be improved.  I don't know that I agree with your suggestions.  I don't know that we have to go about "educating" people in order for their opinions to be valid. 

Not for their opinions to be valid, but for their opinions to be taken as valid advice by those whose tastes are more educated.

They like what they like.  And as someone who has given up trying to "educate" family and friends, I've realized that such attempts at education is to a large degree elitist because it's not a matter of them not knowing better, but of them truly not being interested or not liking what's offered.  The masses don't ignore arthouse "films" and a good number of the Academy Award nominees because they don't know any better or haven't been marketed to properly.  They don't see them because they're pretty sure they wouldn't like them.  People who study music often love jazz, think of it as the highest form of music.  But you can sit the average person down and force them to listen to jazz for hours and they still won't like it.  There's no "educating" to be done because by-and-large the people won't like it regardless.  The people who go into music and become experts are already inclined to like jazz.  The people who study film, who go on to be film professionals and critics, already are predisposed to like arthouse flicks.  The people who are on eGullet, and even the people who review in Zagat, are already pre-disposed to like [insert your favorite haute cuisine restaurant here].  I think it's a testament to its democratic nature that it does pull in pizza places and bbq and Mexican in the mid-20s.  Like I said, I'll put a piece of Black's brisket, or Taco Loco's tinga, or lots of other specific comfort food dishes up against just about any dish that's served in front of you at [insert your favorite haute cuisine restaurant here].

This is taking a peculiarly reverse snobbism approach. Haute cuisine, by its nature is complex, refined and intellectual. Therefore it's more interesting to talk about and may be more interesting to eat, but it's not better to eat or tastier to eat or even superior to eat. Read anything I've written about my travels and you will see that I've frequently written that my most memorable meal is a tie between a meal that may have cost five or six hundred dollars for two and something like a meal whose main course may have been a chitlin sausage in a brasserie. I can however, objectively state that one restaurant deserves three stars and the other does not. Flattening the scale doesn't achieve a democratic purpose, it just pretends haute cuisine doesn't exist.

"I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like." Why institutionalize that kind of subjective lack of taste based on knowledge? I'm not saying anyone should love fine cuisine, only that those to whom I look for recommendations on where to eat need to be knowledgeable and appreciative of food.

There's a great difference between saying people have the right not to be educated and denying that experts exist in any field. Everyone has the right not to be a doctor, but those who choose to become one should demand the most knowledgeable teachers. The public has the right not to care about what they eat, but why are you surprised that connoisseurs demand to have the opinion of trained palates and not rely on a popularity contest?

[Fat Guy]

Can you believe Bux was eating a Big Mac Extra Value Meal while he wrote that?

[ExtraMSG]

To all:

I'm interested to know what your favorite guides are. I'm interested to know what your ideal guide (other than the fantastical guide that knows exactly what you want and where to get it before you even think it) might be. How would you improve Zagat or would you just toss it out? Is there a guide you do use and would you change anything about it? What do you do before you go to a new city? I guess some of this is covered here.

To Pan:

Obviously Zagat could be stronger. I get annoyed and disappointed by it. It doesn't help me much, though neither does any other guide, in Portland anymore. Every guide can be better. But at least its a guide that does cover some of these places. And ultimately the lion's share of the blame has to be placed upon those who presume they know better and yet don't involve themselves in the surveying process. There are a lot of places that will never be found in any guidebook from a large publisher. It's unfortunate, but a fact of the matter.

As for the "low" foods or ethnic foods you mention, you'll never see those kinds of places with a star rating in a guidebook. When an actual decent restaurant with a decent wine list, linen tablecloths, English speaking servers, organic and local produce, high grade meats, Chez Panisse and Diana Kennedy trained chef, but serves Mexican food can only get two stars, good luck for some dive that serves the best curries in this hemisphere even getting one (in Mobil).

To Fat Guy:

You're painting my claims as a straw man. Mobil and Michelin are more like an oligarchy, a small, relatively tight group of people, a committe, as you put it, deciding what's good or bad. Relative to the other guides (I've always claimed relativism here), Zagat is a democracy. Theoretically, anyone could even be a part of it, all they have to do is get themself a form and fill it out and send it in. There are no pre-requisites for voters except being part of the dining community. Sure, there is some "get out the vote" drives, to continue the metaphor; there may even be some dead people voting, but I doubt they make a significant difference. What happens if a chef bad mouths Zagat? The people with no affiliation to Zagat vote. What happens if a chef bad mouths Michelin?

I actually have an ongoing religious argument with a friend that's analagous. He argues that a centralized church is dangerous because if the head of the church (or someone reasonably high up) becomes corrupt, that corruption filters down to all the branches of the church. Whereas if churches are independent, democratized in a way, there is no centralized leadership to corrupt the entire church. A branch may become corrupt, but it's independent and does not necessarily affect the other branches. I point out that a centralized church has the advantage of imposing standards on the whole church and ensuring that no branch becomes corrupted. But it's two sides of a coin, both with their advantages and disadvantages. Our government employs a balanced approach, using checks and balances to the branches of government, both distinct and integrated.

For me, Zagat is the legislative branch, somewhat representative of the people, though not a perfect representation by any means. Mobil, in the US, is more like the judicial branch, experts on the cuisine/law decreeing their judgments from a loftier platform. I am the executive branch, and I execute the laws, ie, I choose where to eat. I guess that makes eGullet the Fat Guy lobbyists, trying to convince me I'd be better if....I think they compliment each other, though none rules solo.

To Bux:

Zagat doesn't review restaurants as a whole. There is no place in a Zagat guide where they give a score for a restaurant as a singular entity. They never say "these are the top restaurants". They have food, decor, and service ratings. They have categories like top food, top decor, top service, top food by cuisine, and most popular. As such, their methods can never be directly compared to Mobil and Michelin which rate restaurants, not distinctly food, decor, service, etc. As someone who is primarily interested in the quality of the food, the Zagat method does appeal to me. Though there are times when I'm looking for an experience and only Mobil and Michelin provide that angle.

For Michelin I should have used the term "recommendations". I wish they were reviews. They might be more useful.

As for the philosophical questions about experts, I could go on and on (wait, I already have and have). a) I'd like to hear some objective analysis of haute cuisine. b) experts in some fields are such because they can prove it; a doctor heals people, he has stats. An electrician makes it so the fuses don't blow. A culinary critic? A film critic? They're often the opposite. They are judging something based on taste, on a subjective analysis. Their opinion should be well-regarded and yet it usually differs from the masses. But the only objective measure of taste is whether people like it. Experts in these matters are experts because either they have more knowledge about the subject than most people, or because the right people agree with their taste. The first has no necessary connection with taste, however, and the second is just cronyism, preaching to the choir among elitists.

I should note I'm making the case more vehemently than I probably should since I'm one of those, since I'm a person who does disagree with the masses, who will eat foie gras and like it (occasionally), who does look for creativity in a dish, for new ingredients and techniques, and who too often tries such things out on his all-too-suspecting-now-that-she's-eaten-about-a-gazillion-such-experiments wife.

This is taking a peculiarly reverse snobbism approach. Haute cuisine, by its nature is complex, refined and intellectual. Therefore it's more interesting to talk about and may be more interesting to eat

This I wholeheartedly deny. Look at how much discussion there's been on burgers, bbq, and the like on both this site and Chowhound. I think you'll find that people are just as eager to talk about comfort foods, ethnic foods, street foods, and so on as they are haute cuisine. I think you're projecting. Look at how often they show Unwrapped on the Food Network. Look at what Tony Bourdain is eating. Look at the dishes and information Good Eats covers. Is there even a show on the Food Network that covers haute cuisine regularly. I guess the closest would be Iron Chef, really. Apparently, even people really interested in food love these "low" foods just as much as the "high" foods. (btw, I disagree somewhat wth the claim that haute cuisine is by its nature complex, refined, and intellectual, too; sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.)

[richards1052]

I've never been a fan of Grimes, but I think he's right on the money in this case.  If there's one guide with a scale of ratings, those ratings must be relative to each other for them to have any value to a stranger to the restaurants involved. When I go to one of the best restaurants in France on the basis of three Michelin stars, I'm not guaranteed I will personally like the food, but I am guaranteed that it will be a world class restaurant. I would feel cheated if I picked up a Zagat guide overseas, made my reservations based on their ratings, got into a cab in NY and wound up at a great neighborhood restaurant when I was expecting major league food.

You want to award top marks for a burger? Fine, but put it in a burger guide, or divide your general guide into meaningful sections. That the Zagat's are so fond of this place just make's me think they're pushing their weight around a bit as well. I've come back from Paris with fond memories of meals at stratospheric prices and equally fond memories of chitlin' sausages in a chain brasserie, but I never confuse the two. Zagat is blurring the lines and failing to communicate with these kind of ratings. It's what they've always done and one reason why they've always been unreliable for serious diners.

I too agree with your critique of Zagat. There are so many things wrong with it. But the fact of the matter is that it's popular and even people who hate it use it. When visiting Sooke Harbor House I read one of the most wonderful restaurant guides (can't remember the name--it was a guide to Candian restaurants by community) I've ever read & I wish we had it here--but alas we don't. All we have is Zagat.

I also see the strangeness of the best restaurant in town finding itself ranked at the top of the charts next to a bakery/lunch spot (as in the Seattle Zagat). But your idea about dividing up Zagat into different sets of ratings for different types of restaurants isn't really workable. I think people want a single guide no matter how flawed its organization & structure might be. Fragmenting the guide into mini-guides or separate chapters for diff. types of places just wouldn't work.

That being said, I found Grimes' review deeply condescending & insulting to the Grocery and couldn't agree less with his set of analogies (ie. Chopin beats out pop songs??). For me full take on this see my blog: The Grocery Throws NY Times & Food Critic Grimes for a Loop

Edited October 25, 2003 by richards1052 (log)

[Pan]

I also see the strangeness of the best restaurant in town finding itself ranked at the top of the charts next to a bakery/lunch spot (as in the Seattle Zagat).  But your idea about dividing up Zagat into different sets of ratings for different types of restaurants isn't really workable.  I think people want a single guide no matter how flawed its organization & structure might be.  Fragmenting the guide into mini-guides or separate chapters for diff. types of places just wouldn't work.

I don't know why you think it wouldn't work. Have you checked out Time Out's guides? I used their Paris guide, and it was divided both geographically and between various types of eateries. Start here and navigate through the rest of the site, if you like. In fact, Zagat's also does this, just not in the main body of their guides.

[glenn]

A couple of observations..... (1) if some of the places I worked for are any indication, ballot-stuffing goes on more than most people realize; (2) the text reviews have already been questioned here... i.e., who writes them, timeliness etc. The recently issued TONY Restaurant Guide is no better or worse than Zagat as far as timeliness. The review of the place I work at is almost a duplicate of last year, even though the entire menu changed as well as the chef, among other things. Items that have been off the menu for one year are still referred to. I understand that by nature, the business rapidly changes, but to simply reprint text from one year to the next without checking facts calls for having the editor go stand in the corner forever.

[Which brings to question, just how valid are any guides? I'm referring to NY, since I'm myopic and that's all I'm familiar with. My favorite is the NY Times Guide, but it too seems outdated by the time it hits the stands. I suppose most of us here rely more on the internet (eglutton!) for info. But I digress, and maybe this s/b another discussion.]

Edited October 25, 2003 by glenn (log)

[richards1052]

I don't know why you think it wouldn't work. Have you checked out Time Out's guides? I used their Paris guide, and it was divided both geographically and between various types of eateries. Start here and navigate through the rest of the site, if you like. In fact, Zagat's also does this, just not in the main body of their guides.

I see your point. Looks like it could work well. But I think this works better in an online format where you can merely click links to go to 'bars' as opposed to 'restaurants.' In book format, where you have to hunt for the section in table of contents, then find the page number where it begins, then leaf through pages of the book to find the right one, etc. this would be more onerous. For example, I find the back portions of Zagat, where they break out eateries by location, cuisinse type, establishment type (bar, bakery,restaurant, etc.) to be awkward to use because you're constantly having to flip from the back section where you locate the establishment's name to the front section where you find the food review. I do use it this way, but I just don't like the format (they should in the back sections at least give you the review page # along with the restaurant's name).

[schaem]

I don't wanna be an elitist dick, but for those of you appalled by the "Chopin vs. pop song" ananlogy, consider this; Chopin has been dead for over one hundred years. Is anyone going to be using Clay Aiken in an analogy one hundred years from now? Like it or not there is a "high art" tradition that carries more historic resonance than the "low".

What does this have to do with food? Well, the next generation of chefs (including those at neighborhood restaurants like The Grocery) are going to be carrying on a tradition of Escoffiers, Chapels, and Adrias (and Matsuhisas, lest I sound too Euro-centric). These chefs will certainly enjoy, and even be influenced by, the cuisine of the street (as I'm sure Chopin listened to polkas), but the dialogue of cuisine is carried through a "high", restaurant-based tradition. So all cuisine is not equally relevant, though it may all be tasty.

PS I love the Grocery, know the owner, and know cooks who have worked there. I also think the best food I eat regularly is prepared by Mexican line cooks after service is over. But to argue that the Zagat abomonation is somehow an anti-elitist revolt and therefore praise-worthy, disregards the importance of well-informed criticism to the health of culture. And to argue that just because you like Pearl Jam better than Chopin makes anyone who argues the cultural, artistic and historical importance of Chopin an elitist is immature and philistine.

[slkinsey]

...to argue that the Zagat abomonation is somehow an anti-elitist revolt and therefore praise-worthy, disregards the importance of well-informed criticism to the health of culture.  And to argue that just because you like Pearl Jam better than Chopin makes anyone who argues the cultural, artistic and historical importance of Chopin an elitist is immature and philistine.

You elitist dick!

[Bux]

Of course simple things can be as impressive as complicated things. What strikes me as wrongheaded is the idea that easy to do things done well are as impressive as things that are difficult to do and done expertly. There's an expertise that is required at Jean Georges, or Alain Ducasse that is not required at Grocery and the chef at Grocery understands that well. What I don't understand is why others don't understand that. I also don't understand why anyone would expect me to pay any attention to a reviewer who didn't understand that.

I have no problem with anyone who picks fault with Grimes' analogies. Analogies will usually get people in trouble. I know, I use them all the time. I though there was some validity in his diving analogy, though. I think it's not so much a matter of Grimes' snobbishness--if you follow his his reviews you'll see he's anything but that--as it is a matter or reverse snobbishness that insists there's no difference between the product of a neighborhood kitchen and that of a world class disciplined haute cuisine kitchen. The fact is that there's no difference between any two things that can be compared unless one is able to appreciate the difference and anyone defending a lack of difference is announcing that he doesn't see the difference. The two possiblities are that he's got a clearer head and recognizes a truth or that he's less of a connoisseur. Nothing that even the chef at Grocery is surprised by his rating, I'm going to believe his loyal customers are not connoisseurs--or that they're playing favorites and voting for the home town boy.

[richards1052]

Of course simple things can be as impressive as complicated things. What strikes me as wrongheaded is the idea that easy to do things done well are as impressive as things that are difficult to do and done expertly. There's an expertise that is required at Jean Georges, or Alain Ducasse that is not required at Grocery and the chef at Grocery understands that well. What I don't understand is why others don't understand that. I also don't understand why anyone would expect me to pay any attention to a reviewer who didn't understand that.

I have no problem with anyone who picks fault with Grimes' analogies. Analogies will usually get people in trouble. I know, I use them all the time. I though there was some validity in his diving analogy, though. I think it's not so much a matter of Grimes' snobbishness--if you follow his his reviews you'll see he's anything but that--as it is a matter or reverse snobbishness that insists there's no difference between the product of a neighborhood kitchen and that of a world class disciplined haute cuisine kitchen. The fact is that there's no difference between any two things that can be compared unless one is able to appreciate the difference and anyone defending a lack of difference is announcing that he doesn't see the difference. The two possiblities are that he's got a clearer head and recognizes a truth or that he's less of a connoisseur. Nothing that even the chef at Grocery is surprised by his rating, I'm going to believe his loyal customers are not connoisseurs--or that they're playing favorites and voting for the home town boy.

While I don't often get to eat at the restaurants that Grimes reviews, I too admire his writing which I read regularly out here in Seattle. He really brings alive the food he's experiencing & the establishments he's reviewing. That was why I was so astonished at what I took to be the wrongheadedness of his review.

That being said, Bux, I think we've all laid out our positions here & fought pretty much to a draw. I think I see the merits of some of what you say & possibly you see some of the merits of those who might disagree with some of what you maintain. So can we call it a draw and move on to other food subjects?