Restaurant Top 50 2004

[oakapple]

Similarly, I have no idea how the NY Times ensures the consistant application of its star rating by its various reviewers, an issue which has led to the contraversy over Amanda Hesser's recent review of Spice Market (see this thread).

I don't think the NYT even claims consistent application. They don't claim inconsistency, either. They are silent on the question. And as far as I know, their ratings have no more definition than "good," "very good," "excellent" and "extraordinary" for one- through four-star ratings respectively.

About all you can say is that, if you look at the list of restaurants historically awarded N stars, you get a general sense of what that means, with the caveat that occasionally a weird rating appears out of nowhere that doesn't fit the historical pattern. Hesser's Spice Market review isn't the first time that has happened.

With Restaurant Top 50 it's simply "name your 5 favourite restaurants", what could be more clear than that?

I agree---it's actually a whole lot clearer. And pace Marcus's hand-wringing, it's just as relevant as any other restaurant-rating system. It's just another data point.

[Dan Ryan]

So what about those 50 Unjustly Overlooked Restaurants then? Anybody care to start? (not me, obviously...)

[marcus]

And pace Marcus's hand-wringing, it's just as relevant as any other restaurant-rating system. It's just another data point.

What you are saying effectively is that all data points, opinions, are equal.

[Opson]

With Restaurant Top 50 it's simply "name your 5 favourite restaurants", what could be more clear than that?

I agree---it's actually a whole lot clearer. And pace Marcus's hand-wringing, it's just as relevant as any other restaurant-rating system. It's just another data point.

I can understand why, as a voter, A.Lynes willfully ignores that despite its informal, and admittedly crap voting system, Restaurant Magazine still misleadingly purports to present a ranked list of the 50 Best Restaurants in the World. What's your excuse?

[Suzi Edwards]

In my view, as long as the process is a known and transparent one, then people should be left to judge the results for themselves. I'm sure you may argue that when the results are quoted out of context e.g. "The French Laundry, the world's No 1 restaurant according to the UK's Restaurant Magazine", the issue is clouded somewhat, but no more so than when an establishment is quoted as having 3 Michelin stars or rated 4 stars by the New York Times. In fact, Restaurant's Top 50 criteria are a hell of a lot clearer to me than either Michelin's or the NYT's.

The fact that restaurant magazine have managed to get together some of the big names for its awards gives the top50 a veneer of respectability. Nevertheless, from a methodological perspective the results are meaningless, because there is NO methodology. Therefore, when the Daily Mail report that Fat Duck is the 2nd best restaurant in the world they are basing their claims on what is essentially an unsound straw poll of 300 individuals who cannot be in a position to answer the question "what is the world's best restaurant", because, as everybody knows, the only answer is "I don't know, I haven't eaten in all of them". Consequently, the Daily Mail is perpetuating an untruth generated by Restarant Magazine's misleading (50 best restaurants in the world) choice of name for their feature. In fact, if it was called, "50 restaurants collated from a list of 300 foodie top 5s", I don't think there would be any argument here today. Of course, it sounds shit though, and I doubt it would tempt T.Keller to cross the Atlantic .

oh yes. what he said.

i wish i'd put it like that.

[oakapple]

And pace Marcus's hand-wringing, it's just as relevant as any other restaurant-rating system. It's just another data point.

What you are saying effectively is that all data points, opinions, are equal.

No, I am saying that before I invest in a "major meal," I gather information from more than one source. A worldwide poll of 300 extremely well qualified diners strikes me as a reasonable source to consider---among many. Obviously, I do not weigh all opinions equally.

[Andy Lynes]

I can understand why, as a voter, A.Lynes willfully ignores that despite its informal, and admittedly crap voting system, Restaurant Magazine still misleadingly purports to present a ranked list of the 50 Best Restaurants in the World. What's your excuse?

If we are to continue to debate this subject it will require that we remain civil to one another, not mis-represent the arguement as it has so far played out and not pre-suppose what others may or may not think.

[Opson]

I can understand why, as a voter, A.Lynes willfully ignores that despite its informal, and admittedly crap voting system, Restaurant Magazine still misleadingly purports to present a ranked list of the 50 Best Restaurants in the World. What's your excuse?

If we are to continue to debate this subject it will require that we remain civil to one another, not mis-represent the arguement as it has so far played out and not pre-suppose what others may or may not think.

Please, I don't mean to be uncivil, forgive me.

What I'm saying is that I understand why you, having close links with the magazine, being a voter, being present at the ceremony etc. might find it uncomfortable to then criticize the voting procedure. However, Oakapple does not have this excuse, so why the total lack of objectivity?

[Andy Lynes]

Opson your considered response is appreciated, thank you.

Although you are correct in saying that I know some of Restaurant magazine's people, that I was part of the voting panel and was present at the ceremony, I would honestly not hesitate to criticise the Awards if I felt it was deserved. As it is, the names of the entire voting panel have been published, the criteria (such as it was) is known, as is the method for compiling the results. I think its perfectly valid to argue about what should and should not appear in such a list, but to say that the Awards are misleading is incorrect.

I think the comparison with the Q Best Album lists us a useful one, particularly as it was in all liklihood Restaurant magazine's source of inspiration for their awards. Nothing on earth will convince me that St Peppers is one of the "best" 3 albums ever made. It is by turns mawkish, self indulgent, tiresome and largely free of truely memorable tunes.

If Q magazine were ever to ask me for my top 5 albums, "Closer" by Joy Division would almost certainly top the list. Now you might say that it has a narrow musical range, the production is relatively crude, the consistantly mournful tone of the record is oppressive and that Ian Curtis can't really sing. And there would be some truth in all of that, but in my opinion it's a work of art and no one will dissaude me of that.

My (not particularly original) point is that judging one restaurant, or album, against another to determine the "best" is intrinsically a subjective process, and that the results must be viewed on that basis. There is simply no point in trying to argue that a Top 50 list of this nature is incomplete, inaccurate or misleading in someway. There is no harm in Restaurant Magazine's 50 Best Restaurants in the World Awards. The weight and value afforded to them is up to the individual reader.

[Opson]

Opson your considered response is appreciated, thank you.

Although you are correct in saying that I know some of Restaurant magazine's people, that I was part of the voting panel and was present at the ceremony, I would honestly not hesitate to criticise the Awards if I felt it was deserved. As it is, the names of the entire voting panel have been published, the criteria (such as it was) is known, as is the method for compiling the results. I think its perfectly valid to argue about what should and should not appear in such a list, but to say that the Awards are misleading is incorrect.

I think the comparison with the Q Best Album lists us a useful one, particularly as it was in all liklihood Restaurant magazine's source of inspiration for their awards. Nothing on earth will convince me that St Peppers is one of the "best" 3 albums ever made. It is by turns mawkish, self indulgent, tiresome and largely free of truely memorable tunes.

If Q magazine were ever to ask me for my top 5 albums, "Closer" by Joy Division would almost certainly top the list. Now you might say that it has a narrow musical range, the production is relatively crude, the consistantly mournful tone of the record is oppressive and that Ian Curtis can't really sing. And there would be some truth in all of that, but in my opinion it's a work of art and no one will dissaude me of that. 

My (not particularly original) point is that judging one restaurant, or album, against another to determine the "best" is intrinsically a subjective process, and that the results must be viewed on that basis. There is simply no point in trying to argue that a Top 50 list of this nature is incomplete, inaccurate or misleading in someway. There is no harm in Restaurant Magazine's 50 Best Restaurants in the World Awards. The weight and value afforded to them is up to the individual reader.

Restaurant Magazine can do what they want, but I think their use of 'best' is very misleading. There are a lot of people who don't bother to examine the selection criteria, the kind of people who recieve their information from the press second hand via abridged versions of the the original feature. This means that as a result, the vast majority of those who hear that French Laundry is Restaurant Magazine's 'best' restaurant in the world, are under the impression that it actually is the 'best' restaurant in the world; Is it?

If the answer is 'no', or 'can't answer that question' etc., then the poll is misleading. As I said before this is due to the use of the categorical (and untrue) term, '50 Best Restaurants in the World'. Put simply, it's dishonest to claim that this poll provides this information.

[oakapple]

However, Oakapple does not have this excuse, so why the total lack of objectivity?

Because I truly don't understand why all the fuss? It is simply a list of "50 best" something-or-other; such lists abound, and no great harm to the consuming public ensues. I do understand that it isn't as "objective" as, say, a list of the 50 tallest buildings. But given the credentials of the voters, it is nevertheless of some slight interest.

This means that as a result, the vast majority of those who hear that French Laundry is Restaurant Magazine's 'best' restaurant in the world, are under the impression that it actually is the 'best' restaurant in the world....

Your blood pressure would probably go way down if you'd stop worrying that the "vast majority" of the readers of this survey are not as smart as you. I think people can figure out, just as you did, that FL isn't objectively the best restaurant in the world, merely that in one particular survey it polled that way.

[Andy Lynes]

I do understand that it isn't as "objective" as, say, a list of the 50 tallest buildings.

But what about when they stick a big ariel on the top to get a few extra feet of height just to get to the number 1 position? That's cheating in my book. (Actually, does the French Laundry have a bloody great ariel on it's roof. Maybe that's how it got voted number 1. No, hold on, that doesn't matter for this does it?)

[thom]

Yes, what Oakapple said.

I think everyone accepts that there is no ruler or machine that goes 'bing' to actual measure how 'good' a restaurant is in an absolute sense. Like films, music, cars or bed-socks talking about 'Best' with restaurants is always subjective and can always be disagreed with.

This applies as much to Michelin, GFG, Zagat as it does to Restaurant magazine. Sure any guide may have a very detailed set of criteria but it is still down to opionion as to how each restaurant measures up against them. Put a load of 'experts' in a bag and they will disagree passionately with each other about any particular issue you care to mention...

I think any set of opinions (whether I agree with them or not) has to be treated as valid if the sample size and knowledge of the panel is sensible and if any parameters regarding the survey are openly displayed.

I genuinely think it would be productive to discuss why certain restaurants made the list if we don't rate them, and why those we do rate did not.

Cheers

Thom

[Andy Lynes]

Biggest "shock" for me was The Woleseley. I haven't been there so don't have a personal view as to whether it's inclusion is warrented or not. It's simply that it has been open such a short space of time I'm surprised it has been deemed to be world class already, despite the excellent track record of the key players involved. And despite the fact that Michael Winner loves it of course (where was he on Tuesday night by the way. No don't tell me, at The Woleseley).

[thom]

As Andy has rightfully identified the main problem with the Wolseley is knowing where all the 'e's go when typing it...

Cheers

Thom

[Andy Lynes]

There has obviously been some confusion as I thought it was recently opened Woleseley Fish and Chip bar in Scunthorpe, where Michael Winner pops in for a mushy pea fritter and pickled egg whenever he's in the vicinity.

Now I realise its The Wolseley, I take it all back. Except for that extra "e", I'll keep hold of that for the weekend of you don't mind, I may be needing it.

[Opson]

This means that as a result, the vast majority of those who hear that French Laundry is Restaurant Magazine's 'best' restaurant in the world, are under the impression that it actually is the 'best' restaurant in the world....

Your blood pressure would probably go way down if you'd stop worrying that the "vast majority" of the readers of this survey are not as smart as you.

What are you talking about my blood pressure for?

I think people can figure out, just as you did, that FL isn't objectively the best restaurant in the world, merely that in one particular survey it polled that way.

Well you for one needed my help to work this out.

Anyway, what is "objectively 'best'" supposed to mean?

'Best' is an objective term, which is why I am against its misleading misuse. 'Best restaurant' is not the same as the subjective 'favourite restaurant', or the qualified 'I think it's the best restaurant'.

[Andy Lynes]

The Concise Oxford Dictionary definition of "best" (you can always tell when an arguement is in terminal decline when someone reaches for a dictionary) is "of the most excellent or outstanding or desirable kind". What is excellent, outstanding or desirable to one person may well not be to another, hence it is perfectly possible to use the word to denote a subjective view.

[Opson]

What is excellent, outstanding or desirable to one person may well not be to another, hence it is perfectly possible to use the word to denote a subjective view.

Yes, I think I aready made this distinction quite clear, but I see I'll have to do it again because some of us aren't paying attention.

the best (superlative of good, meaning better than everything else) unless qulaified by a clause, as in: It's the best film I've ever seen; is entirely objective.

Now, should Resaurant Magazine have named their poll (as I've already said twice), "the best restaurants according to 300 foodies", then subjectivity would have been admitted. However, 'The Fifty Best Restaurants in the World' does not do that, and it's clearly this because it is supposed to sound definitive and categorical, and of course, objective.

As you yourself have said in the past:

What restaurants could possibly qualify as 50 of the best in the world? It's quite obviously an unanswerable question...

Why did you say this? Well, because there's no way of objectively doing this, and if it is subjective, as you now seem to think then how can it possibly be a list of the best restaurants? Favourite, preferred, perhaps, but best; even Michelin don't claim that much.

In fact, when you said this:

Possibly designed to encourage debate and to get people saying the phrase "did you see the top 50 in restaurant magazine?" (what am I saying, of course thats the bloody reason!).

You seemed a lot more lucid.

But where we really agree with each other is here:

As I said before I think the list should be viewed as a harmless bit of fun, but when the Standard heralds it as "a boost for the British restaurant industry" it would appear that things have got out of hand just a tad. By employing such a spurious method by which to compile the list, the magazine is in danger of misleading people and being an embarrassment to the industry it represents rather than a boost to it.

LINK.

Edited April 23, 2004 by Opson (log)

[thom]

Hmmm...

I think this has been covered but it is still my opinion that 'Best' is always subjective as it it not tangiable or measureable.

That said if you define 'Best' as something tangiable and measureable in a specific instance you could argue the case. For example if I defined the 'best' lightbulb as the one that produced the most light then I could clearly pick a winner.

I don't think that holds for restaurants (or music, film, design etc) as all the component elements (quality of ingredients, technical skills, originality, presentation, service etc) can only be viewed subjectively.

To be honest if you don't accept the subjective nature of words like 'Best', 'Greatest', 'Most important' etc then todays media-saturated world will be a source of constant irritation and confusion for you. You can't pick up a paper or turn on the TV without such terms being bandied about.

Let's face it, you can't have a headline or soundbite which offers full justification or explantation of the point or fact being communicated. This is a principle of media communication and I think modern society appreciates that a headline may hook you, but you need to read on to get the full story and make a value judgement on it's worth (ie form your own opinion).

Cheers

Thom

[Lisa J]

I think we can assume that even the least media-savvy person would generally understand the usage of "best" when it comes to these lists. When People Magazine publishes it "50 Most Beautiful People" on the planet list is anyone in their readership seriously thinking that these are demonstrably the 50 most beautiful people in the world? Does the magazine need to say, "The 50 most beautiful people as subjectively decided by our editors and limited only to people who are already famous and therefore excluding 99.9% of the world population." It is inherently subjective and I think the vast majority of people realize the same is true for any such list. Top "whatever" lists sell magazines and create publicity. And provoke circular discussions about the nature of such lists. This had something to do with food, right?

lisa

[Opson]

I think modern society appreciates that a headline may hook you, but you need to read on to get the full story and make a value judgement on it's worth (ie form your own opinion).

That's fair enough. Restaurant Magazine uses the term misleadingly, but the public know that restaurant magazine generally uses misleading tactics in order to grab their attention and accept it. In fact, in order to rectify the misinformation they buy the publication so that they can really have an opinion. Brilliant!

Can I infer then that you agree with me when I say this:

'The Fifty Best Restaurants in the World' [...] is supposed to sound definitive and categorical, and of course, objective.

??

[thom]

No, of course you may not.

You are though without doubt the 'Best' indignant and outraged person I have seen on eGullet since the heyday of Steve, LML, Simon et al bless 'em.

Good for you.

Cheers

Thom

[Opson]

No, of course you may not.

You are though without doubt the 'Best' indignant and outraged person I have seen on eGullet since the heyday of Steve, LML, Simon et al bless 'em.

Good for you.

Cheers

Thom

A question: Is your list actually a definitive list of the 50 best restaurants in the world?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

Edited April 23, 2004 by Opson (log)

[Andy Lynes]

But where we really agree with each other is here:

As I said before I think the list should be viewed as a harmless bit of fun, but when the Standard heralds it as "a boost for the British restaurant industry" it would appear that things have got out of hand just a tad. By employing such a spurious method by which to compile the list, the magazine is in danger of misleading people and being an embarrassment to the industry it represents rather than a boost to it.

LINK.

I think that stands up as a comment on the first awards where a panel of only 50 people were surveyed and whose opinions might not have been the most authoritative. This year, a panel of 300 plus last years Top 50 restaurants were canvassed, Restaurant Magazine's reputation is now quite firmly established and therefore I do not think those comments are germain this time around.