Zagat discussion split from NY Forum

[oakapple]

It's amazing, Tim Zagat has always described himself as a "pollster" without publicly expressing personal opinions about restaurants.  I guess he forgot that mantra.  Shows you what an insult the Zagat Survey is to serious foodies...  (and shame on the NY Times)

Note: Menton's comments appeared in a thread in the NY forum entitled "Zagat Editorial in NYT - Dining with the enemy" referring to Tim Zagat's dining advice column for delegates to the Republicn National Convention.

Whether you like Tim Zagat or not, I don't see how an isolated editorial represents such a radical departure that it justifies this attack. It is even harder for me to see what the Times has done wrong by printing it. Actually, I found the column rather entertaining.

And lastly, exactly how is Zagat an insult to "serious foodies"? Myself, I don't get insulted quite that easily. The Zagat guide is no less reliable than most NY food guides I've seen (they all have their limitations), and in fact, it presents in one place quite a bit of genuinely useful information. The multi-faceted search capability on their website is superior to what's available on any other restaurant site.

[menton1]

And lastly, exactly how is Zagat an insult to "serious foodies"? Myself, I don't get insulted quite that easily. The Zagat guide is no less reliable than most NY food guides I've seen (they all have their limitations), and in fact, it presents in one place quite a bit of genuinely useful information. The multi-faceted search capability on their website is superior to what's available on any other restaurant site.

We have this discussion quite often on Eg; usually when the guides come out in the spring-- perhaps you either disagree or have not seen our long topic discussions about Zagat. I think it would be fair to say that the majority of Eg-ers have much disdain for Zagat. Especially our restaurant proprietors who are conspicuous by their absence in the guides for no apparent reason. A bad "review" in Zagat is much better than a good review elsewhere, because people use it as a telephone book. And the politics of Zagat have been shown to be, well, smarmy.

Here is one of our long discussions:Egullet Zagat Discussion

We have also discussed this at great length in New Jersey, with similar disgust.

[Lreda]

I think that in New Jersey we show more disgust but hey, that's my opinion.

[dscott]

It's amazing, Tim Zagat has always described himself as a "pollster" without publicly expressing personal opinions about restaurants. I guess he forgot that mantra. Shows you what an insult the Zagat Survey is to serious foodies... (and shame on the NY Times)

Not sure that I follow your logic. To what mantra are you referring?

[phaelon56]

I'm amused by the number o fplaces that have a "Zagat rated" sticker somewhere on or adjacent to the front door but a reprint of the specific Zagat review is nowhere to be seen. Might we assume that they actually got a bad rating from Zagat but are perfectly happy to glom onto the supposed cachet of having been rated at all?

[tommy]

Might we assume that they actually got a bad rating from Zagat but are perfectly happy to glom onto the supposed cachet of having been rated at all?

without a doubt. well, i wouldn't assume a *bad* rating, but i would assume the bit about the supposed cachet. personally i'm happier if a seen a "American Express" sticker on the door.

as far as zagat's being a insult to serious foodies, i'm certainly not that easily insulted. i found the piece completely innocuous, and noticed some of my favorite places mentioned.

and i only disdain the disdainful. tim zagat or his book don't really bother me all that much.

Edited August 30, 2004 by tommy (log)

[menton1]

Not sure that I follow your logic. To what mantra are you referring?

The one that says that "pollsters" should NEVER express their own opinions, if they deign to be professionals. Zagat claims that they never make any editorial decisions, the "survey" is strictly a report from their survey participants. Except that they control which restaurants are printed on the survey, and who knows what other patronage goes into their book. As I said, smarmy.

[tommy]

The one that says that "pollsters" should NEVER express their own opinions, if they deign to be professionals. Zagat claims that they never make any editorial decisions, the "survey" is strictly a report from their survey participants.

i think the distinction between the man and the book might come in handy here.

[dscott]

Okay thanks. I now understand the point that you're making and how it relates to Mr. Zagat.

However, just so that we don't get caught up too much in the sanctity of polls and pollsters, there are many partisan pollsters who find ways to express their own opinions while maintaining the respect of their peers. The clear distinction with regard to Mr. Zagat is the ability to maintain the respect of one's peers.

[Pan]

Who are Mr. Zagat's peers, and is he respected by them?

[oakapple]

Who are Mr. Zagat's peers, and is he respected by them?

Tim Zagat has more-or-less defined his own category, so it's pretty hard to say whom his peers would be. Nobody else is doing what he is doing, at least not on his scale.

[tommy]

Who are Mr. Zagat's peers, and is he respected by them?

Tim Zagat has more-or-less defined his own category, so it's pretty hard to say whom his peers would be. Nobody else is doing what he is doing, at least not on his scale.

or one could say that publishers are his peers. and i would think that other publishers would respect someone who made gazillions in publishing. either that or they'd hate him.

[rich]

Most food reviewers, especially Mimi Sheraton, hate Zagat's. That must mean it's a good thing - a very good thing.

[Pan]

I don't see your equation. Reviewers you don't like hate something; therefore, it's good?

[rich]

I don't see your equation. Reviewers you don't like hate something; therefore, it's good?

Actually, I like all reviewers because I value opinions. However, generally I don't agree with their views about Zagat's, which is very negative. Ms. Sheraton, who was an admirable reviewer, spoke for a number of critics when she said how could anyone rely on Zagat's over a single professional restaurant reviewer?

Her reasoning was how could the unprofessional masses understand food in the same manner that a professional does? I disagree with that premise. I always believed the combined opinion of many was more reliable than the opinion of one, even if that one was well informed. I guess that's why I enjoy living in a semi-democracy.

[Pan]

And I agree with Fat Guy's views on Zagat, which is way short of a "democracy." However, if it was one, the most popular eateries would be chains like McDonalds, Burger King, and KFC. So if you'd rather rely on the views of the masses than patronize the places reviewers for the New York Times like, by all means go to those chains, but you won't find me there - and somehow, I don't think you'll be going there, either.

[Nathan]

a very quick reply to Rich -- even assuming that mass opinion should hold weight...there is an inherent methodological problem with Zagat's....the reviews for a given restaurant only come from people interested enough in that particular restaurant to respond -- i.e. people who liked it or really hated it...no disinterested middle. at least most professional reviewers pick a restaurant for review before visiting it.

[marcus]

a very quick reply to Rich -- even assuming that mass opinion should hold weight...there is an inherent methodological problem with Zagat's....the reviews for a given restaurant only come from people interested enough in that particular restaurant to respond -- i.e. people who liked it or really hated it...no disinterested middle. at least most professional reviewers pick a restaurant for review before visiting it.

The key point is that each restaurant is evaluated by a unique self selected sample and that there is no equivalence between the samples that evaluate any 2 restaurants. Therefore the scores for any 2 restaurants have no statistically valid relationship one to another. When Zagat indicates that a rating is statistically significant, it only means that it is significant for the unique sample that rated a particular restaurant, not that there is any significance for comparing ratings among different restaurants.

[oakapple]

a very quick reply to Rich -- even assuming that mass opinion should hold weight...there is an inherent methodological problem with Zagat's....the reviews for a given restaurant only come from people interested enough in that particular restaurant to respond -- i.e. people who liked it or really hated it...no disinterested middle. at least most professional reviewers pick a restaurant for review before visiting it.

There are some methodological problems with the Zagat survey, but there is more validity to the survey than you give it credit for. According to Zagat, the top food restaurants in New York (all tied with 28 ratings) are:

Le Bernardin

Daniel

Peter Luger

Nobu

Bouley

Jean Georges

The Grocery

With the exception of The Grocery, this is not a ridiculous list. It includes 4 of the 5 restaurants the Times had rated four-stars at the time the survey was taken, and two three-star restaurants. (Alain Ducasse, the other four-star restaurant, has a Zagat food rating of 27.)

Now, if it were true that everybody responding to Zagat gives the top rating to their personal favorite—even if it's McDonald's—you'd see a lot more restaurants like The Grocery getting ratings far out of proportion to where they really belong. You can go down the Zagat list, and as far down as about 24, the rankings are generally believable, with just a handful of ridiculous results thrown in. But then, professional critics sometimes uncork ridiculous ratings, too. (Witness for the prosecution: Amanda Hesser.)

By the way, it is not true that the Zagat respondents are "people who really liked it or really hated it." In fact, bad ratings on Zagat are very rare. Zagat is nominally a 1-30 scale, but about 98% of restaurants are 15 or higher, with the average being about 20. Once you get above 24 (i.e., well above average), Zagat is rather reliable at winnowing the wheat from the chaff.

It is also worth noting that the text comments Zagat provides, which unlike the numerical ratings reflect editorial judgment, are witty and often devastatingly accurate.

[rich]

there is more validity to the survey than you give it credit for. According to Zagat, the top food restaurants in New York (all tied with 28 ratings) are:

Le Bernardin

Daniel

Peter Luger

Nobu

Bouley

Jean Georges

The Grocery

Essentially, I was going to say something similar to OA, so I'll keep this brief and just add one more point. The people who vote in Zagat's are not those who are regulars at McDonald's, etc. By the very nature of taking the time to submit a set of "reviews," it means, with a great deal of confidence, that the person is interested in food and "good" restaurants. I would doubt many people who are just fast-food junkies submit to Zagat's.

[Pan]

I think it's questionable to suggest that if you find the results credible, that automatically reflects well on the procedure.

As for the text comments, they are obviously not arrived at through "democratic" means, and the most notorious was something to the effect that "this restaurant is better than its rating."

[rich]

I think it's questionable to suggest that if you find the results credible, that automatically reflects well on the procedure.

As for the text comments, they are obviously not arrived at through "democratic" means, and the most notorious was something to the effect that "this restaurant is better than its rating."

Is this another way of asking "do the means justify the end?" Zagat isn't a professional polling organization, so I'm sure the techniques are not scientific. But the results are still meaningful as long as its understood that its just a compilation of opinions - nothing more, nothing less. At least Zagat has the sense to separate food, ambience/service.

I could understand that comment about the rating. Sometimes a person knows the Zagat food rating in the latest edition is, say a 22, and thinks the food is better - that's happened to me. In fact, I think I wrote that line.

Edited September 1, 2004 by rich (log)

[Pan]

I could understand that comment about the rating. Sometimes a person knows the Zagat food rating in the latest edition is, say a 22, and thinks the food is better

You may think it's better than its rating, but isn't that comment a pretty total mockery of the "integrity" of the way the rating is reached?

[rich]

I could understand that comment about the rating. Sometimes a person knows the Zagat food rating in the latest edition is, say a 22, and thinks the food is better

You may think it's better than its rating, but isn't that comment a pretty total mockery of the "integrity" of the way the rating is reached?

I don't think so.

I may think a restaurant is several points higher than its current listed number and then write that comment. If at the end of the new year's survey, the editors find several ratings higher than the "new" average with similar comments, then I think it's valid to print such a comment.

[Pan]

And I think it's an insult to the raters. Just curious: How would you feel if a comment that a restaurant was "not as good as its rating" had been printed?