New York Magazine To Have 5-Star Rating System

[oakapple]

Cuozzo makes an excellent point in dumping the star system. He says it's worthless because restaurants change and re-invent themselves so quickly. They must in order to survive or because of key personnel changes.

Cuozzo didn't just dump the star system. He dumped reviews altogether. He also ignored the fact that there are quite a few restaurants that have managed to remain remarkably consistent over time. Typical of Cuozzo, he gave the most extreme examples, and then pretended as if they were the norm.

How many times have you gone to a restaurant and found it's very different then your review of choice? I know it's happended to me. A three-star restaurant in February may be a one-star place in April or vice versa.

Even when this does happen, there are many possible explanations: (1) the restaurant changed; (2) unluckily, the restaurant had a rare off-night when you visited; (3) you didn't order the dishes the critic praised; (4) you and the critic have different tastes; or, (5) the restaurant had never been that good to begin with.

But of course, this phenomenon isn't confined to restaurants. I have sometimes loved Broadway shows that the Times critic hated, or hated shows that they loved. And just as with restaurants, there are many possible explanations for this.

Having said that, I think it is rare that a three-star restaurant in February will be a one-star place in April. If you have a one-star experience in April at a place that earned three in February, there is very likely some other explanation.

I would also note that even Rich—eGullet's most outspoken opponent of the star system—seems implicitly to agree that a restaurant's future performance is predictable. After all, Rich highly recommends Tasting Room. How do we know whether Tasting Room today is the same as Tasting Room the last time Rich visited? Well, it might not be, but in recommending it so passionately, it appears that Rich believes that Tasting Room has shown itself dependable, and barring some kind of culinary earthquake, it will continue to do so.

Sneakeater wrote:

One thing I have to say in Adam Platt's and New York Magazine's favor is that at least he (unlike the Times) came out and explained in detail what the stars mean, and in some of his blurbs even explained why a certain number of stars was awarded.

Well, Platt pretty much had to do that, because his system was brand new. Somewhere in the deep recesses of the Times archives, there's probably a similar explanation when Craig Claiborne started awarding stars for the first time.

But I think the real problem is one that Fat Guy noted, which is that as soon as you start using stars, they sort of eclipse the text of the review. People remember the number of stars awarded, but not what the reviewer said.

Do people remember the text of the reviews in publications that don't award stars? I don't think so. Unless the critic left behind an unusually memorable quote, the texts of reviews just aren't long remembered—whether there are stars or not. In publications that don't award stars (The New Yorker), the reviews are just totally lost in a black hole.

The flip-side is that, even when there are stars, people have to read the review anyway, or they obtain equivalent information somewhere else. How many diners are choosing restaurants knowing only the star rating?

Edited January 4, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

The public wants them and that's why it's a waste of my time arguing for their removal.

←

I agree with that totally. I haven't deluded myself into thinking the star system will ever disappear, but it's fun to rail against the system every once in a while.

I agree totally, too. This just seemed a particularly appropriate time to rail, since a publication that had previously abjured stars decided to up and adopt them.

BTW, nobody's answered my question why the Times and now New York use stars to rank restaurants but not movies.

[Sneakeater]

The flip-side is that, even when there are stars, people have to read the review anyway, or they obtain equivalent information somewhere else. How many diners are choosing restaurants knowing only the star rating?

←

I think you'd be surprised -- especially when the star ratings are then repeated, without full reviews, in list form (as on the Times website and presumably, in the future, on New York Magazine's website and in its print restaurant listings).

[oakapple]

BTW, nobody's answered my question why the Times and now New York use stars to rank restaurants but not movies.

←

Although the Times and New York do not, there are other media outlets that use stars or their functional equivalent (letter grades, thumbs-up/down) to rate movies.

Why haven't the Times and NY done that? You'd have to ask them. I can think of plausible explanations, but their actual reasons might be something else entirely.

[Pan]

[...]Do people remember the text of the reviews in publications that don't award stars? I don't think so.[...]

←

I don't know the answer, but I'll throw out the following question:

Do people remember restaurant reports ("reviews") on eGullet that don't include star ratings?

[oakapple]

[...]Do people remember the text of the reviews in publications that don't award stars? I don't think so.[...]

←

I don't know the answer, but I'll throw out the following question:

Do people remember restaurant reports ("reviews") on eGullet that don't include star ratings?

←

eGullet reviews are fundamentally a different medium than newspaper and magazine reviews. Each have their strengths and drawbacks.

An individual eGullet review is typically not as literate, as carefully written, as well informed, or as thorough as a New York Times or New York Magazine review. Also, most eGullet reviews are about an individual visit to a restaurant, while the professional critics will pay multiple visits and sample much more of the menu before venturing an opinion.

However, the collaborative nature of eGullet makes up for this, particularly for restaurants that are frequently reviewed. While the individual posts are often inferior, collectively they offer much more insight than a single newspaper or magazine review. (This assumes you have the patience to wade through them all, which for some restaurants could require a considerable time investment — the Per Se thread is perhaps the most extreme example of this.) eGullet is also much more up-to-date, and this can be helpful for a restaurant that changed considerably after the newspaper and magazine reviews came out.

On the other hand, eGullet is dependent on what the contributors want to write about. There are dozens of pages on Per Se (a restaurant that has been open less than two years), but Keens Steakhouse (a restaurant that has been open since the 19th century) never had its own thread till Frank Bruni wrote a review of it three weeks ago.

[Pan]

Another advantage of some eGullet restaurant reports is the number of photos. And actually, some restaurant reports are a good deal more detailed than reviews in paper publications are, because posts here are not restricted to a specific number of lines of text.

I do agree with all your points, but what we're left with is this:

Some restaurant reports on eGullet include star ratings that posters have chosen to give. Does that make their reports more memorable than those which do not include star ratings? And I think my answer is "No." How that relates to paper publications is something else, and I'm not ready to offer an opinion about that yet.

[skye]

I guess the moral of this story is "Thank God for Zagat's".

I think I'd get a lot less steamed over bruni's and platt's reviews if they teased out the different aspects of the review. A neighborhood greek joint getting one star is almost a reproach to some of the two star restaurants which I like very much (Cafe Grey, for instance), whereas a review that gave separate rankings for food, service, and ambiance would be less infuriating, and, I think, more helpful. I am a foodie, so I would be happy to dine at a restaurant with four star food and one star decor, but I know plenty of folks who would much rather eat boring (even bad!) food in the hottest new dining room in town than suffer through a three hour high cuisine miracle. Their preference is 100% as valid as mine, so wouldn't it make sense for reviewers to give them something they can use?