Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...