re-reviews

[jgould]

my question has to do with any follow-up performed by food critics at the nytimes. specifically, when a reviewer visits a restaurant, writes a review which is somewhat negative; how does the critic go about determining when to re-visit?

the concept is two-fold:

a) if the review is accurate, & the restaurant is smart, then it would certainly be in the restaurant's best interests to correct whatever criticisms are fairly made. shouldn't the restaurant be rewarded & re-reviewed so the public's perception would not be biased based on the reviewer's original review?

b) what is the policy of follow-up reviews in general? 1 example: Park Bistro received 3 stars a number of years & several chefs ago; however, the Times, whenever it refers to Park Bistro, includes the 3 stars, which is misleading.

[Marian Burros]

The policy with re-reviews is that isn't one. It's very difficult to get around to all the new places that deserve a review one time around. But when something is called to our attention by more than one person, or someone we know and trust - ie the palce you gave x stars to has improved enormously or decline precipitously, we try to get back to it.

In fact I have one coming up next week, my next to last review before I go back to my regular work.

Thanks for all your great questions