Restaurant Top 50 2004

[marcus]

So is there any restaurant that blatantly doesn't deserve to be on the list? Maybe one or two, but the list isn't perfect and all places will provide an excellent meal.

This was undoubtedly true before anyone cast a vote. The list of restaurants to be voted on was, to begin with, a selection of fine restaurants. What the Restaurant Magazine survey purported to do as its value add was to organize these restaurants in "best" rank order. This is the real issue under discussion.

[marcus]

Marcus was concerned that restaurants could be highly rated simply because they are oft-visited. As he put it:

This is a very important point. This introduces a significant popularity factor into the ratings, all other things being equal, the restaurants that have been visited by more of the judges, will score higher. This causes a major systematic error in the results. This conceivably could have been compensated for by a normalization process where every judge listed the restaurants that they had and hadn't visited, and the scores of the less visited restaurants were appropriately increased.

Normalization introduces the opposite problem: a seldom-visited restaurant that hasn't proved itself across a wide spectrum of voters might get rated more highly than it deserves. I wouldn't try to normalize. A restaurant needs to get at least N votes. If it has that many, and the average is 3 stars, then it's a 3-star restaurant. Zagat has a little symbol that it uses to designate restaurants that have had a small number of votes, to signal that the rating might be less reliable. Zagat's notation for restaurants garnering mixed reviews is also useful (i.e., where the range of votes wide, suggesting uneven food/service).

Oakapple misunderstands my point. I stated that normalization would be absolutely required if the scoring system was based on the total number of votes cast, as with the Restaurnt Magazine survey, when those casting votes were only considering the subset of the restaurants in which they had dined. I continue to believe this, and it is unavoidable using that methodology.

I further said, that normalization could be avoided if a scoring system were developed in which each restaurant was scored individually. I also said that this was an altogether better approach. That is what he's proposing, so we agree on this point.

[DJOblong]

Just stumbled across this discussion. "PLease save this guy." Sheesh! Tough crowd!

Anyhoo, the purpose of my post was admitting that I have sweet FA of an idea about the scene in general so wanted some opinionated opinions. Thankfully this site has plenty ...

Kidding. But it is good to have such vigorous points being made so that I can absorb the different points of view, run it through my own personal taste filtering system, and derive a perfecto answer.

For the record I am going with Daniel, as that seems to be regarded, if nothing else, as definitely one of the best and also an excellent experience. Fortunately I will be spending a lot more time in NY in the near future so plan to check the other options out too.

It was a shame Per Se had that fire but hopefully it will get cleaned up and the waiting list my someday become realistic...

Cheers

DJO

[robyn]

 

interpretation:

they should have a website so i don't uneccessarily and highly pedantically quote something about a restaurant i know zip about and subsequently be made to eat my words.

ah well, made me laugh this morning.

cheers

gary

Actually - I have restaurant websites on the brain these days because they have been *extremely* useful in terms of deciding where to eat - and booking reservations in London next month. Perhaps I will wind up eating at a restaurant in London that doesn't have a website - but it won't be one where I've made a reservation before leaving.

By the way - it seemed to me that websites are kind of the norm in London. Perhaps they are not the norm in Paris. I daresay that when Robuchon opens in Las Vegas - he will have a website - and you won't need a lengthy discussion on a message board to sort out what the reservations policy is.

By the way - I would rather say something wrong in a message - and have everyone find out what the real reservations policy is at Atelier (although I'm not sure what it is yet) - than make a mistake when making plans to dine at one of the so-called "top 50" restaurants in the world. And why pick on me? Pick on the numerous dining enthusiast web sites - the so-called professionals - that still say the restaurant doesn't take reservations! Robyn

[robyn]

Many of the genuinely best restaurants in the world are quite small and low volume and haven't bothered with websites, Ambroisie is one example.  They all take reservations, so you can call them and learn their specific policies.  I'm not sure how individuals acquires a sense of entitlement that requires successful businesses to confirm to their desires and tells these businesses what they "should" do.

My lawyer's a one-man show - and I suspect he nets less than Ambroisie - but even he has a website. Might be a "French" thing - because I didn't run across any restaurants in London that were of interest to me that didn't have websites. In fact - St. John posts its menus on a daily basis - along with the times various dishes are expected to be ready. In my opinion - it is particularly useful to be able to make reservations through email when you're dealing across a lot of time zones.

By the way - I don't think I'm "entitled" to anything - and - as far as I'm concerned - a business owner has the right to run his/her business any way he/she desires (assuming compliance with legal requirements). Still - I - like most customers - may approve or disapprove of certain business practices. And we have the right to take our business wherever we want. Robyn

[inventolux]

How can one talk about the validity of such a list? There are something like 13 or 14 restaurants on the list that are in the UK, which means that Britain has approximately 25% of the world's best places to catch some great grub.

Much peace,

Ian Lowe

ballast/regime

Dude slow down, youre rockin the boat man. Want a job?

[Opson]

In the front of the Zagat survey, there is a list of Most Popular restaurants. The list is prefaced by the explanation, "Each of our surveyors has been asked to name his or her five favorite restaurants...

Restaurant Magazine is doing essentially the same thing as Zagat, with a smaller and more knowledgeable group of survey participants, and a larger geographic coverage area...

Okay Zagat have a 'most popular' (not 'best) list for NY. Zagat also publish guides globally.

Michelin comprehensively cover some of the most culinarily important parts of Europe (and the UK).

Nevertheless ,neither of these guides, even attempts to put forward a global ranking. Perhaps if Michelin tried a Europe-wide top 50 there might be some support for it; i.e. they have credibility, infrastructure, and history on their side. Nevertheless, they would still be open to many of the criticisms levelled at Restaurant Magazine.

This is why we have to critically examine the scope of Resaurant Magazine's puported list. First off, they're not Michelin, or even Zagat, they're a very small circulation UK trade publication whose status does not correspond with the task they claim to be undertaking. Secondly, they have absolutely no infrastucture, or even method, with which to assess restaurants. This leads us to ask why should Restaurant Magazine even consider that it's capable of producing a list of the top ten restaurants in London, let alone the entire globe?

The only reason that I can see for the insignificant Restaurant Magazine taking on this global ranking is that no other organization (including important ones that might possibly be capable of turning in something semi-credible) is so madly arrogant to imagine that the public would swallow such a ludicrous proposal.

Well, in this sense Restaurant Magazine has been thoroughly vindicated. The public is crap, and the global Press, and PR nursemaids of the restaurants involved make no distinctions as to the validity of polls. If Restaurant Magazine say yours is the best restaurant in the world, then it is, who cares who/what Restaurant Magazine is, who cares how they arrive at their conclusions?

It's only strange people like Marcus and myself (2 on the planet) that think this matters. We're in a minority. Restaurant Magazine has successfully decieved everyone (except 2), into whom its ranking has come into contact. This takes skill and audacity and for that they should be congratulated.

[Gary Marshall]

Well, in this sense Restaurant Magazine has been thoroughly vindicated. The public is crap, and the global Press, and PR nursemaids of the restaurants involved make no distinctions as to the validity of polls. If Restaurant Magazine say yours is the best restaurant in the world, then it is, who cares who/what Restaurant Magazine is, who cares how they arrive at their conclusions?

It's only strange people like Marcus and myself (2 on the planet) that think this matters. We're in a minority. Restaurant Magazine has successfully decieved everyone (except 2), into whom its ranking has come into contact. This takes skill and audacity and for that they should be congratulated.

Phew !

got there in the end

gary

ps restaurant mag is not trade only, it is freely available on the high street.

[oakapple]

It's only strange people like Marcus and myself (2 on the planet) that think this matters. We're in a minority. Restaurant Magazine has successfully decieved everyone (except 2), into whom its ranking has come into contact.

You're right that, at least on this thread, only you and Marcus seem to think this matters.

But you're wrong that everybody else has been deceived. To the contrary, the methodological flaw of the survey is obvious. No great insight is required to see this.

My reaction is: it's a magazine poll...who cares? Or, as a previous poster sarcastically put it, quel désastre! Indeed, your own post militates against your argument. If Restaurant Magazine is "insignificant," then why are you so exercised about what it says?

To paraphrase Fat Guy (who doesn't seem to have been deceived either), it's no worse than Zagat, and arguably better due to the expertise of the voters. A whole lot more people read Zagat than Restaurant Magazine, and Life As We Know It goes on.

[Opson]

You're right that, at least on this thread, only you and Marcus seem to think this matters.

But you're wrong that everybody else has been deceived. To the contrary, the methodological flaw of the survey is obvious. No great insight is required to see this.

If you think being lied to doesn't matter, or if you don't care about the quality of consumer information, then not only are you being deceived, but you are also deceiving yourself. However, this is your problem.

Indeed, your own post militates against your argument. If Restaurant Magazine is "insignificant," then why are you so exercised about what it says?

This very contradiction, which you are attempting to present as a flaw in my analysis, is the reason why Restaurant Magazine is not up to the job of preparing a credible ranking. They cannot prepare a credible ranking because they do not have the resources, know how, or integrity to do so. Nevertheless, despite their insignificance and unsuitability for the task in hand, they have managed to get the results of their poll plastered over the world's media. It would be much harder to object if Restaurant Magazine weren't an insignificant entity.

To paraphrase Fat Guy (who doesn't seem to have been deceived either), it's no worse than Zagat, and arguably better due to the expertise of the voters. A whole lot more people read Zagat than Restaurant Magazine, and Life As We Know It goes on

I'm not really sure what your point is here. I get the sensation that because you don't give these things any importance, you seem to think that no one else should either. Well, I think you you acknowledge that the methodology of Restaurant Magazine is flawed, which means that the results are worthless; which means that they are not 'the best'; which means that by presenting them as such Restaurant Magazine is lying.

So the only point at which we differ is that you wish to impose your continually repeated 'So What' morality on anyone who chances upon this discussion. Why?

I have to say that unless you can make a better case for ignoring deception than 'So What', then I think your contribution to this thread is effectively over.

[Andy Lynes]

Maybe the cumulative number of restaurants - that would reasonably be considered to go onto a list - that these 300 people have visited amount to only 100 or 150.

Perhaps someone at restaurant can confirm the total number of restaurants voted for.

Restaurant Magazine editor Chris Maillard offers some futher background on the awards:

"392 restaurants were named at least once, from 1880 at The Bentley to Zuni

in San Francisco. However, we had to throw out a small but significant

proportion of the responses due to the equivalent of spoilt ballot papers -

the voter hadn't actually given us five, they'd misspelt something too badly

to be trackable down, or we couldn't read it at all.

These were actually the voters' choices from all of the restaurants they've

ever been to - the question wasn't 'what is your favourite restaurant right

now?' but 'what is your favourite restaurant?'. The use of the present

tense, though, obviously suggests that the restaurant is currently operating

(although the French Laundry wasn't for much of this year).

And, coincidentally, the word 'favourite' actually means the most enjoyable,

rather than the one with the most stars, the biggest truffles, the whitest

tablecloths, the smarmiest waiters, or any other old-school measure. This

has, I have to say, confused the hell out of a few traditionalists. But we'd

gladly put a shed in Kettering in the 50 if enough people liked it.

Quite a few of our respondents were critics, who may well eat out in excess

of 300 times a year. Others were chefs and restaurateurs who one would

suspect also get about a bit. Which gives you a potential list of places

they've eaten just this year, based on a list of 350 people (rounded down a

bit) somewhere in the region of 105,000.

But in actual fact, God knows. We put our trust in very basic maths and

building a good list of people in the first place, rather than retroactively

applying mathematical rules that would probably confuse Stephen Hawking. One

of the strengths of our 50 Best, I like to think, is its simplicity. There

are various retrospective analyses you could apply to explain some of its

quirks, but actually it's just a very straightforward sum, and trying to

overcomplicate it misses the point slightly."

Chris also supplied the following comments after having read this thread in its entirity:

"Firstly, we're not completely satisfied with the list either. And we won't

be until we have a contribution from every chef, restaurateur, critic and

gourmet in the world, preferably nicely distributed across every continent.

But we tried hard to get a good list, and enough of them to make it

statistically fairly valid. Next year I'm hopeful we'll be able to double

the size of our panel, so if anybody out there would like to send

suggestions of voters (or nominate themselves), they'd be most welcome.

Secondly, 'best' is of course a subjective term. If you want to make any

decision, and you ask just one person which is best, you'll get a subjective

answer. But if you ask 300 experts, while it's still subjective, there's

considerably more chance that your answer will be useful. Or so we hope.

And lastly, the reason we did this is twofold: We were fed up with the

fuddy-duddy nitpickery of Michelin, Gault-Millau and the like. This list

should measure simply 'most enjoyable'. And nobody else did a worldwide

list, which in this international culture seems like an oversight.

And yes, 'Best' is not exact terminology. But restaurant enjoyment is not an

exact, measurable commodity. We say it's the 50 Best. If you don't like

that, you're welcome to start your own list called 'The 50 Most Popular

Restaurants in the World, Sorted According to Statistical Frequency and With

some Caveats About The Selection Process'. I'd like to see you fit that on

the cover."

[Episure]

"Firstly, we're not completely satisfied with the list either. And we won't

be until we have a contribution from every chef, restaurateur, critic and

gourmet in the world, preferably nicely distributed across every continent.

But we tried hard to get a good list, and enough of them to make it

statistically fairly valid. Next year I'm hopeful we'll be able to double

the size of our panel, so if anybody out there would like to send

suggestions of voters (or nominate themselves), they'd be most welcome.

Thom Hetherington had voiced the same concern when he had contacted me to cast my nominations.

I think next year's list will be slightly more universal and will continue to be more broad based to justify the title 50 Best Restaurants in the World.

[robyn]

And, coincidentally, the word 'favourite' actually means the most enjoyable,

rather than the one with the most stars, the biggest truffles, the whitest

tablecloths, the smarmiest waiters, or any other old-school measure. This

has, I have to say, confused the hell out of a few traditionalists. But we'd

gladly put a shed in Kettering in the 50 if enough people liked it...

This is exactly what happened when Zagat's said that Grocery, a restaurant in Brooklyn, New York was the 7th most popular restaurant in New York.

By the way - I'm not sure what the big fuss here is all about. There are numerous "Best X Lists" in all manner of publications - including ones like Travel & Leisure - and Gourmet. I doubt anyone takes them at anywhere near face value - and no one spends a half day dissecting them. Robyn