New York Magazine To Have 5-Star Rating System

Sneakeater · December 30, 2005

I wish people wouldn't feel the need to do that.

Sneakeater · December 30, 2005

How come the Times and now New York have star rating systems for restaurants, but not movies, books, theater, and dance?

rich · December 30, 2005

Just what NYC restaurants and patrons need - another star system to analyze. I have some friends in the legislature, I wonder if I can get them to ban the restaurant star system in NY.

I wish someone would emulate the New Yorker reviews and finally put an end the the NY Times/Michelin archaic system.

"Star System RIP" is the food headline I would most enjoy seeing in 2006.

oakapple · December 30, 2005

It's human nature to rate things. Of the major media in New York with weekly restaurant reviews, most assign stars, and it is common in other cities, as well. The NY Post dropped its star rating system this year, which I think was a mistake. As Ruth Reichl observed in her eGullet Q&A, it merely served to diminish the Post as a meaningful contributor to the city's restaurant journalism. NY Mag's choice of a 5-star system is peculiar, as the Times, the Daily News, and Crains all employ the more familiar 4-star system.

Rich finds the star system archaic, which is probably a misuse of the word, since as I understand it, Rich believes that the system never made any sense; not that it formerly made sense, but has lost its relevancy. Rich, in turn, praises the New Yorker reviews, which in my view are the worst restaurant reviews in town.

Publications aren't going to drop restaurant ratings, because they foster debate, and debate is always good for business. Those Michelin folks are geniuses. Whatever you may think of their stars, do you think they would have gotten all that publicity if they'd just published a list of restaurants without ratings?

By the way, NY Mag always "rated" restaurants: those the critics particularly liked were labeled "Critics' Picks." On their website, you can limit your search to those restaurants, just as on the Times site you can search for a particular number of stars. In effect, the old NY Mag system was a binary star system: either the restaurant was a pick, or it wasn't. The new system simply allows the magazine to be more nuanced in its recommendations.

Edited December 30, 2005 by oakapple (log)

TAPrice · December 30, 2005

The NY Post dropped its star rating system this year, which I think was a mistake. As Ruth Reichl observed in her eGullet Q&A, it merely served to diminish the Post as a meaningful contributor to the city's restaurant journalism. NY Mag's choice of a 5-star system is peculiar, as the Times, the Daily News, and Crains all employ the more familiar 4-star system.
←

If you go back and look at the conversation, Ruth was not talking about the star rating but rather the Post's decision to run features instead of reviews. She disagreed with the idea that the restaurant reviewer no longer serves a purpose.

I interviewed her when the last book came out, and she said that people accused her of playing "fast and loose" with the star system at the times and that it was absolutely true. She also said it was no secret that she wasn't a fan of stars.

Edited because the original post had appalling grammar and made no f*cking sense.

Edited December 31, 2005 by TAPrice (log)

rich · December 30, 2005

Rich finds the star system archaic, which is probably a misuse of the word, since as I understand it, Rich believes that the system never made any sense; not that it formerly made sense, but has lost its relevancy. Rich, in turn, praises the New Yorker reviews, which in my view are the worst restaurant reviews in town.
←

I used archaic because the star system was around long before I was, and giving the benefit of the doubt to those who created and employed it, I grant that at one time it probably served a purpose - especially when communications systems were less sophisticated and full reviews were more difficult to transmit "en masse."

Just because it's human nature to rate, and the star system was invented by those tire folks, doesn't mean it's still a viable system. I think it's archaic and meaningless in modern society, Ruth Reichl or not.

I happen to enjoy the prose of the New Yorker reviews. It's another interesting and often witty read in one of world's great magazine publications.

Just as an aside, I don't recall praising the New Yorker reviews, I said I wish more people would emulate their system of no stars. They have good and bad reviews (though mostly good) just like eveyone else.

Sneakeater · December 31, 2005

By the way, NY Mag always "rated" restaurants: those the critics particularly liked were labeled "Critics' Picks." On their website, you can limit your search to those restaurants, just as on the Times site you can search for a particular number of stars. In effect, the old NY Mag system was a binary star system: either the restaurant was a pick, or it wasn't. The new system simply allows the magazine to be more nuanced in its recommendations.
←

This is where I disagree with you. I think the way NY does it now is more "nuanced" than the star system. The reason is, NY Mag's current system solves the famous "Four Star Hotdog Stand" problem.

The way NY does it now, there's a blurb describing each restaurant. The ones that are especially recommendable, no matter what they are, get a "critic's pick" star. This enables the reviewers to flag places that are particularly good, without submitting them to a unitary grading system that compares apples to oranges.

Take, for example, that deli on 10th Ave. between 47th and 48th with the great great great taco/torta/sope counter in the back. I don't think it's currently listed in NY Mag. But if it were, it would have to be a "Critic's Choice". Under a star system, though, it would have to be given either one or no stars, cuz after all it's just a counter in the back of a deli. A reader would easily skip it -- or else get confused by the fact that the descriptive blurb is so much more favorable than the blurbs for some of the two-star places. Unless you really think about the star system and its application, you wouldn't get that this place is much better, for what it is, than other places that get more stars.

As has often been said, the star system is good for ranking luxury dining places -- but that's about all it's good for. The so-called "binary" system, which identifies notable choices in all categories, is to me much more useful as a general matter.

(If the moderator thinks this discussion should be in the "Bruni and Beyond" thread, I apologize for starting this separate one.)

Edited December 31, 2005 by Sneakeater (log)

oakapple · December 31, 2005

This is where I disagree with you. I think the way NY does it now is more "nuanced" than the star system. The reason is, NY Mag's current system solves the famous "Four Star Hotdog Stand" problem.
The way NY does it now, there's a blurb describing each restaurant. The ones that are especially recommendable, no matter what they are, get a "critic's pick" star. This enables the reviewers to flag places that are particularly good, without submitting them to a unitary grading system that compares apples to oranges.

You seem to be assuming the worst. Until shown otherwise, I assume that the blurbs will still be there, and that any restaurant that merited a "critic's pick" star will still get at least one star in this new system. For all we know, the new system may be in addition to, rather than in lieu of, the Critics' Picks.

It's notable that NY is adopting a 5-star system. I would guess that the extra star is for the bottom end of the range—the places the NY Times doesn't rate at all, but that are excellent at the casual end of the dining spectrum.

Take, for example, that deli on 10th Ave. between 47th and 48th with the great great great taco/torta/sope counter in the back. I don't think it's currently listed in NY Mag. But if it were, it would have to be a "Critic's Choice".

Well, given that NY Mag hasn't seen fit to recognize the place at all, it's a bit of a leap to presume that it would be a Critic's Choice if they listed it. I haven't gone through the full list of Critic's Choices in a long time, but if I recall correctly, the system didn't extend to deli counters.

Under a star system, though, it would have to be given either one or no stars, cuz after all it's just a counter in the back of a deli. A reader would easily skip it -- or else get confused by the fact that the descriptive blurb is so much more favorable than the blurbs for some of the two-star places.
←

It seems to me there are quite a few fallacies in this comment. It presumes that readers will be confused. Well, it's clear that Sneakeater won't be confused, since he's just pointed out the hazard of selecting a restaurant solely by its star rating. I am quite sure that I won't be confused. So, who are these confused people? I would be much more sympathetic to this argument if someone who actually got confused were posting here. As it is, we might be arguing about confused people who don't exist.

Star systems are debated fairly regularly on eGullet, and I've never yet seen a post from someone who was confused for the reason cited above. Nevertheless, we have posts assuring us that confusion is rampant, even though the people saying so aren't confused themselves. They're just indignant on behalf of the confused people whom they can't identify, but whom they're sure must exist somewhere. Anyhow, I seriously doubt that there are very many diners who select a restaurant based solely on the number of stars, without looking at any other information.

Edited December 31, 2005 by oakapple (log)

Sneakeater · December 31, 2005

1. You do at least me too much credit. I found the NY Times star system incredibly confusing until I realized that it is designed to rank luxury establishments and to either underrate or ignore other types of places. I think a problem with the star system is that in order to understand it you have to think about it. I guarantee you that a lot of people would have trouble grappling with the concept that a restaurant that gets one star can be better, for what it is, than a restaurant that gets two stars.

2. Moreover, unlike the NY Times reviews, NY Mag (which incorporates Cue) has a comprehensive list. You say that they don't list "counters in the backs of delis," but if you look at their list, you'll see that they do include places like that. Selectively to the point of being random, but they're there. It's been argued on this board that places like, say, Grand Sichuan International, excellent as they are, are not appropriate for starred NY Times reviews, because they don't fit into the star system. Rather, they're left for "$25 and Under". NY Mag's comprehensive listing could not appropriately be similarly limited. (This criticism will vanish if NY Mag limits the stars to the main reviews, but not to the Underground Gourmet and the comprehensive listing. Time will tell, but I think the stars will tend to expand even if they're initially limited that way.)

3. You say that adding a lower star to apply to casual places will resolve some of these complications. My point is that they won't. Giving, say, Grand Sichuan International only one star in a star system is confusing, I'd contend, because it implies that it's "worse" than all the two star restaurants, which isn't true (it's just less prepossessing). It only makes sense if the reader understands that the system isn't designed to rank quality in and of itself, or quality within restaruant categories, but rather is designed to rank luxury dining establishments. I know I'm getting repetitive, but I don't believe that the foregoing is widely understood, and moreover I think it takes too much thought -- more thought than casual readers are likely to put in -- to understand. So instead of making things easier, the star system makes things harder, IMO.

Edited January 1, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

oakapple · January 2, 2006

New York's innaugural issue of the year lists Adam Platt's 101 Best Restaurants. Not only does he explain and defend the new star system, but he rank-orders the restaurants from 1 to 101.

Platt explains the usual objections to a star system:

Principal among these [is] the peddling of objective certainty in what is, at its root, a highly subjective process. Unlike, say, movie critics, who watch the same film, or book critics, who read the same text, restaurant critics draw conclusions from a dining experience that can vary wildly not just day to day but hour to hour. Then there’s the whole question of perspective.
Isn’t a perfect one-star cheeseburger at least as delicious as a perfect four-star soufflé?

Then he retorts, "Too bad. We’re doing it anyway." Among the reasons given, "people seem to enjoy this sort of thing" and "we’re adding to the fun." I tend to agree that ratings (and the arguments over them) are fun, and one shouldn't get all hot and bothered about it, as some people here do. That rank-ordering, he admits, is "a flight of reckless, possibly insane whimsy." He adds, "Will people still be outraged? Of course they will."

The reason given for adopting a five-star system (as opposed to the Times's four, or Michelin's three), is merely that it offers "more levels of discrimination." This is, of course, true; but by that argument, why not 1 to 10, or Gayot.com's 1 to 15, or Zagat's 1 to 30? Anyhow, the choice ensures that the New York ratings won't be directly comparable to those in the Times or Michelin. That's either a good or a bad thing, depending on your point of view.

He explains that lower-starred restaurants aren't necessarily worse than their exalted bretheren; just different. However, "one star for a restaurant with elite aspirations is really not much better than no star at all." This is the one flaw that the NY Mag system shares with the Times. One star might mean a good restaurant; but it also might mean a restaurant that aspired to great things, and fell short.

For the record, Platt's five-star restaurants are Le Bernardin and Masa. Seven restaurants earn four stars: Per Se, WD-50, Craft, Babbo, Jean Georges, Daniel, and Aquavit. I won't list those at the lower levels, but there are 23 restaurants at three stars, 47 at two stars, and 22 at one star.

(Likely the reason for so few one-star restaurants is that magazines like New York devote most of their reviews to higher-end restaurants. One would presume that there's a larger number of restaurants that would earn one star, if only Platt had gotten to them. Also, the cutoff at 101 is obviously space-driven and arbitrary.)

Among the sacred cows that Platt slaughters: Alain Ducasse (3*), Danube (2*), Nobu (2*), Bouley (2*, lumped with Upstairs) and La Grenouille (zero). He admits an aversion to chains, thus awarding just two stars to BLT Steak, and none to either Fish or Prime.

Since this is a 101-restaurant blast, one must assume that not all of his experiences at these restaurants are current. His two-star slap of Danube is based on a recent visit, but he certainly did not pay the multiple visits that would ordinarily be required for a proper review.

Let the games begin!

Edited January 2, 2006 by oakapple (log)

Pan · January 2, 2006

[...]
Under a star system, though, it would have to be given either one or no stars, cuz after all it's just a counter in the back of a deli. A reader would easily skip it -- or else get confused by the fact that the descriptive blurb is so much more favorable than the blurbs for some of the two-star places.
←
It seems to me there are quite a few fallacies in this comment. It presumes that readers will be confused. Well, it's clear that Sneakeater won't be confused, since he's just pointed out the hazard of selecting a restaurant solely by its star rating. I am quite sure that I won't be confused. So, who are these confused people? I would be much more sympathetic to this argument if someone who actually got confused were posting here. As it is, we might be arguing about confused people who don't exist.[...]
←

Not so, oakapple. The reason most eGullet Society members are not "confused" is that we have already read explanations by people like Fat Guy on what the stars really mean -- as opposed to what the New York Times et al. say they mean. Contrast that with a friend of mine, who said a couple of days ago that Pylos just got "only one of four stars, just above `Satisfactory,'" with a review that includes the following key sentence:

Pylos has been put together with considerable care and operates with unusual grace, a conscientious ambassador of Greek cooking and a standout in the East Village, where the dining scene has improved over the last few years.

It's clear to me that this is a good review, but it is not clear to my friend, and my effort to explain that a restaurant serving slightly upscale rustic Greek food in a nice but fairly informal setting could never get 4 stars was dismissed as convoluted bullshit.

Sneakeater · January 3, 2006

Thanks, Pan. That's exactly what I've been trying to say, but you said it better.

Edited January 3, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

Sneakeater · January 3, 2006

I should add that when I've tried to explain the way the Times star system works, based on the understanding I've gleaned from Fat Guy and others on this board, to people who aren't the type of people who read boards like this, they too have dismissed that explanation as "convoluted bullshit". (Hey, maybe those guys have their own board, since they all seem to use the same terminology and all.)

Edited January 3, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

oakapple · January 3, 2006

Not so, oakapple. The reason most eGullet Society members are not "confused" is that we have already read explanations by people like Fat Guy on what the stars really mean -- as opposed to what the New York Times et al. say they mean.

I've a lot of respect for your opinion, Pan, but the New York Times says that one star means "good," and two means "very good."

It's clear to me that this is a good review, but it is not clear to my friend, and my effort to explain that a restaurant serving slightly upscale rustic Greek food in a nice but fairly informal setting could never get 4 stars was dismissed as convoluted bullshit.
←

But did this actually lead him to make the "wrong" dining decision? I mean, is there anybody who is going exclusively to three and four-star restaurants — on the purported guidance of the Times that one and two aren't really that good? Mind you, there might be people who only eat at those restaurants for other reasons; I'm asking about people who do so because the Times confused them. I've found Fat Guy's explanations useful and clarifying, but I think I figured out on my own that that's not what one and two stars meant.

Edited January 3, 2006 by oakapple (log)

Bux · January 3, 2006

Oakapple, could you define "good" and "very good" in a way that work universally? I can't, even though I also use those terms when speaking with disparate groups of people. I'll go one further in terms of semantics. Ask me how some ten wine is after I've had a sip. If it's drinkabe, I'll probably respond by saying "It's fine," although you're never going to hear me say "It's a fine wine."

I wonder if the star system for restaurants originated with Michelin. I suspect not, although in France in the middle part of the 20th century is where it worked best simply because there was an universal ideal of what a restaurant should be and people understood the ideal.

What I see as silly in dismissing an inexpensive restaurant with one or two stars is not just that this is as good a rating as that sort of restaurant can hope to earn, but that it implies cost is no object and that Cafe Boulud, or Per Se is no less affordable than Pylos. In the UK, the Michelin system has been accused of being confusing simply because there's a greater variety of restaurants, particularly "ethnic" restaurants which don't adhere to the French ideal. In France, one may not agree with the stars, but the system has been less confusing. That too is changing as France looks abroad for new ways to dine. There's no longer a distinct parity between the finesse of the cooking and that of the decor and service.

For me, and this is a personal take, two restaurants (Blue Hill & WD-50) have done more to wreak havoc on the star system than anything else since Claiborne issued stars at the Times. These are fairly dissimilar places and perhaps not all connoisseurs will share my opinion of their exaulted culinary status, but the finesse of the cuisine is far out or proportion to the luxury of the setting and service, not that I find fault with the service, ambience or decor of either place. It's just that they are not posh, while the food is often as good as that served at Michelin two and three star, and NY times four star, restaurants. I learned to enjoy the service at places such as Daniel simply because I needed to pay for that service to get that level of food ten or fifteen years ago. Today, you don't have to do that. I still enjoy experiencing that level of service and am willing to pay for it, but I recognize it as a separate aspect of the dining experience. Tighten my purse strings a bit and I will drop the more luxurious restaurants, not without regret, but without real depravation.

rich · January 3, 2006

For me, and this is a personal take, two restaurants (Blue Hill & WD-50) have done more to wreak havoc on the star system than anything else since Claiborne issued stars at the Times. These are fairly dissimilar places and perhaps not all connoisseurs will share my opinion of their exaulted culinary status, but the finesse of the cuisine is far out or proportion to the luxury of the setting and service, not that I find fault with the service, ambience or decor of either place. It's just that they are not posh, while the food is often as good as that served at Michelin two and three star, and NY times four star, restaurants. I learned to enjoy the service at places such as Daniel simply because I needed to pay for that service to get that level of food ten or fifteen years ago. Today, you don't have to do that. I still enjoy experiencing that level of service and am willing to pay for it, but I recognize it as a separate aspect of the dining experience. Tighten my purse strings a bit and I will drop the more luxurious restaurants, not without regret, but without real depravation.
←

Bux, I agree and have stated that numerous times over the past three years. In believe I started a thread about four-star food in moderate surroundings at one point.

But don't you believe that this is why the star system has become archaic? I'll use my favorite restaurant choice here. In my mind the Tasting Room serves top-level food is what may be called uncomfortable surroundings. Don't you believe this is a major factor why its not ranked higher? Compared to the Tasting Room, Blue Hill (which I believe serves top-level food) is a palace.

I maintain we don't need a star system, but for those who enjoy the "fun" of ranking, then at least revamp it to reflect the current restaurant climate

Sneakeater · January 3, 2006

Once again, though, Oakapple, you're assuming that people understand that "three" and "four star" restaurants are types of restaurant and not a shorthand designation of a qualitative judgment within types. I'm not sure most people understand that. It isn't intuitive. Sure, if you read enough "starred" reviews and think about them hard enough you can come to some kind of general understanding (although I must be stupid because I didn't really get it until I read Fat Guy explain it here). But to me a shorthand code like the star sytsem is only useful if it's transparent. I.e., if you have to think hard about it to understand it, it fails in its mission and is rather, if anything, counterproductive.

Edited January 3, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

Sneakeater · January 3, 2006

I wonder if the star system for restaurants originated with Michelin. I suspect not, although in France in the middle part of the 20th century is where it worked best simply because there was an universal ideal of what a restaurant should be and people understood the ideal.

I think the other thing about Michelin is that everybody understands that Michelin is very selective -- that it's an honor just to be listed in Michelin, much less to receive even one star. In such circumstances, people understand that even one Michelin star is a very high rating and that a restaurant must be special to get it.

The Times and New York are different. They're periodicals. Their mission is to review lots of places, good and bad. Not just to recognize the extraordinary. So a lot of people assume (I think) that one star means a place is no better than OK. If the Times really applied the star system rigorously according to its terms, there'd be a lot more "Satisfactory" ratings and a lot fewer two-star ratings.

(To be painfully clear, this is a separate criticism from my main issue with the star system, which is my problem with the star categories' signifying types of restaurants instead of just quality levels -- even though I recognize that the star system couldn't really work any other way.)

Edited January 3, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

Sneakeater · January 3, 2006

But did this actually lead him to make the "wrong" dining decision? I mean, is there anybody who is going exclusively to three and four-star restaurants — on the purported guidance of the Times that one and two aren't really that good?

I think the effect would be sort of the opposite (or the obverse, or whatever the correct word is). Not that people would go only to three- and four-star rated restaurants, but that they would avoid one-star rated restaurants (say, in favor of similar places that they have personal knowledge of or that their friends could recommend from experience). Thus, "starred" reviews can become useless if not counterproductive at the level of inexpensive places of limited pretense, because even favorable reviews can turn readers off rather than encouraging readers to visit.

In other words, someone who's never otherwise heard of Pylos could decide not to go there on the basis of its only having received one star. To make it more concrete, think of something like what appeared to happen to Pan. You or I or Pan, reading the review, proposes Pylos as a dining spot to a friend. The friend says, "Are you kidding? That only got one star from the Times this week. Why would I want to go to a restaurant that's only one step above 'Satisfactory'?" So instead, you go to, say, Col Legno yet again. Which is fine, but it would have been nice to try someplace new that looked promising.

I've never been Pylos, so I don't know how good it is. But doesn't that strike you as a "wrong" dining decision just based on the review?

Edited January 3, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

oakapple · January 3, 2006

Oakapple, could you define "good" and "very good" in a way that work universally? I can't, even though I also use those terms when speaking with disparate groups of people.

"Universal" is a tall order. In my mind "good" implies a strong restaurant in its category and neighborhood, but that is not unique or "special," and may well have significant limitations that offset its best attributes.

I think of "excellent" (three stars) as a top restaurant in its category that offers an experience both unique and special, and also has the ambiance and service of a fine dining experience.

Two stars (very good) is something between those two. It is, of course, a judgment call, but so is the text of the whole review.

I think Fat Guy has a post somewhere that explained all this a lot better than I've just done.

For me, and this is a personal take, two restaurants (Blue Hill & WD-50) have done more to wreak havoc on the star system than anything else since Claiborne issued stars at the Times.
←

I think the system is evolving, however. Once upon a time, fine dining implied an experience like La Grenouille that has now gone out of style. If you look at some of the restaurants that have earned three stars lately (e.g., BLT Fish), I think it is clear that WD-50 and Blue Hill could also earn three stars from The Times if they were reviewed again today—assuming the critic believed the food warranted it.

Rich wrote:

I'll use my favorite restaurant choice here. In my mind the Tasting Room serves top-level food is what may be called uncomfortable surroundings. Don't you believe this is a major factor why its not ranked higher?

I haven't been to the Tasting Room, so I can only make a general comment. I would note, first of all, that Adam Platt didn't include Tasting Room in his top 101 for NY Mag. So, one possibility is that, quite simply, critics don't share Rich's enthusiasm for Tasting Room. (Grimes wasn't enchanted, and neither was Michelin; it's starting to look like a trend.)

But let us suppose Rich is correct—that Tasting Room has some of the best food in New York, but in an uncomfortable setting. Well, I think setting does count. As Ruth Reichl observed in her eGullet Q&A, dining out is partly a kind of theater. We care about the environment in which it takes place. Would most diners enjoy themselves equally as much if Thomas Keller were serving Per Se's cusine in a McDonald's? I don't think so.

Sneakeater · January 3, 2006

I think Fat Guy has a post somewhere that explained all this a lot better than I've just done.

Yeah, but the point is that if you happened not to have read that Fat Guy post, there's nothing explicit in the Times that would alert you to the fact that that's how stars are awarded.

Would most diners enjoy themselves equally as much if Thomas Keller were serving Per Se's cusine in a McDonald's? I don't think so.
←

Of course they wouldn't. But would that justify giving Keller only one star, or excluding him from the star system altogether?

rich · January 3, 2006

Would most diners enjoy themselves equally as much if Thomas Keller were serving Per Se's cusine in a McDonald's? I don't think so.
←

That's an extreme example and the answer is obviously no. But would a diner enjoy Keller's food as much in a Blue Hill or WD-50 setting? I think the answer is some may enjoy it more. A number of people don't want to be pampered in the manner that Per Se and other places do. Some are just not comfortable in that setting.

Those same people may enjoy a more relaxed setting, maybe more comfortable attire etc. Personally, I would. And that would make my meal more enjoyable.

Following that thought process, could a critic deduct stars because a place is too formal for her/his liking? Well, I guess they could since ambiance is currently part of the overall rating.

Just as the NY Times current critic seemed to deduct Babbo a star for rock music et al as part of an ambiance issue. I would enjoy reading a star being deducting because the critic was pampered too much and the service was much too formal and the music too soft and the setting wasn't relaxed.

Edited January 3, 2006 by rich (log)

Corinna Dunne · January 3, 2006

Yeah, but the point is that if you happened not to have read that Fat Guy post, there's nothing explicit in the Times that would alert you to the fact that that's how stars are awarded.
←

I missed this post. Any chance of a link... if you've got a moment?

Thanks.

Sneakeater · January 3, 2006

Yeah, but the point is that if you happened not to have read that Fat Guy post, there's nothing explicit in the Times that would alert you to the fact that that's how stars are awarded.
←
I missed this post. Any chance of a link... if you've got a moment?
Thanks.
←

I think it's as much a bunch of posts as "a" post. Some are in this thread:

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=45287&hl=