Zagat Bashing

[Deacon]

I recently added to a thread which had as one of its ancillary points the old chestnut about Zagat reviewers not having "elevated" tastes (as we presumably do). And as anyone with more than trivial knowledge of and experience with food reviewing does, or so went the thread. We were all having a hearty, self-satisfied virtual laugh about those unwashed masses that review for Zagat, and I admit, I joined in as well with a few remarks about Zagat reviewers.

Perhaps I spoke too soon.

I went to www.zagat.com and checked to see whether my remarks were justified. In some cases, it turns out, they weren't. I checked the Zagat databases for New York City, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. Here are the number one restaurants in SF and DC, and the top five in NYC, *based solely upon scores for food*:

NYC -- Daniel, Chanterelle, Le Bernardin, Nobu, and Jean Georges, in that order, all 28

DC -- The Inn at Little Washington, 29

SF -- The French Laundry, 29

I don't expect anyone to gasp. These are not controversial scores. I don't think anyone would disagree with them, and yet they were taken straight from Zagat. At least in the case of SF, DC, and NYC, the unwashed suburbanites of Zagat seem to be hewing exactly to the current critical opinion. For other cities there's less agreement, but I still didn't see anyone nominating Joe's Crab Shack or Claim Jumper as the best restaurant in town.

Another thing I noticed, BTW, was the "The Best Restaurant in Our Town Isn't IN Our Town" phenomenon. Frequently, according to Zagat, the best restaurant in town is way out in the country, or at least out in the suburbs. Call it the "Washing/Laundry" phenomenon if you want. (This doesn't apply to Detroit, apparently, where MOST of the excellent restaurants are out in the country.) But apparently the top restaurant, or close to it, frequently seems to be quite a drive from the center of town:

Washington, DC -- The Inn at Little Washington (Washington, VA), 29, #1 for food

San Francisco -- The French Laundry (Yountville), 29, #1

New Orleans -- Lafitte's Landing (Donaldsonville), 27, #4

San Diego -- El Bizcocho (Rancho Bernardo), 27, #2

Chicago -- Carlos' (Highland Park), 28, #1

Seattle -- The Herbfarm (Woodinville), 28, #2

Portland -- Tina's (Dundee), 28, #3

Comments? Suggestions? Death threats?

[tommy]

there was a discussion about this phenomenon, which got quite heated if i recall, elsewhere. i was suggesting that lots and lots of cities, unlike new york, have 'burbs that are often times considered "the city." to use an example i've used, i had family who lived about 30 minutes outside of downtown chicago, if not the city limits, but if you asked them, they were from "chicago." this seems apply to what we're seeing here as well. note, this would never happen in NYC, ostensibly due to the rigid and distinct geographic borders which with is as has been blessed.

[jordyn]

Detroit is a particularly interesting city in that there is practically nothing worthwhile in the central city area; restaurants are not the only thing that you have to travel to the 'burbs for.

[Holly Moore]

One of my many issues with Zagat's is: do restaurants like Daniel, the French Laundry and The Inn at Little Washington receive top ratings because those responding are actual diners who have had wonderful experiences at those places or because the people filling out the surveys have merely heard such grand things about them and award top ratings even though they've never dined there.

Though all three are certainly great restaurants and likely the finest in their respective areas, I suspect the latter - that Zagat's ratings more represent conventional wisdom than actual experiences.

[Steve Plotnicki]

As Holly implies, the problem with the Zagat Guide is you don't know how reliable their reviewer base is. Back in the old days when they first started, one could be certain that only hard core foodies bothered to send in reviews. But now it could be anyone. I'm much happier with a defined elite of reviewers. It's more relaible for my palate. But I guess mainstream is mainstream and considering the number of copies they want to sell, they need to reach a less diiscriminating audience than moi. God bless them as I still find reading it useful.

[Gavin Jones]

I've looked at it in shops but I would never use it in London or another European city. It is completely oblivious to local atmosphere, it is useless at high end or low end so it represents the nadir of the middlebrow if it represents anything.

I would prefer to have a dreadful meal (with some entertaining lowlights) than a symphony of tedium as accredited by Zagat.

In London I use the Timeout guide - I don't always agree with it but it is possible to calibrate one's taste against the descriptions offered.

[=Mark]

I've not had problems with the larger cities, but the smaller areas who are set up to be managed by a "local editor." In many cases these are the food critics from the local newspapers. These folks can carry some baggage which can seep into the ratings.

In my case, which is delved into on another link, this involved a large, popular Mexican Restaurant. This place has drawn standing room only crowds for over 20 years and was voted top Mexican restaurant in our region by NJ Monthly Magazine for a dozen years straight. Well, our local newspaper critic has never liked the place. She never actually reviewed it, but from offhand disparaging comments made when reviewing other local Mexican places it was obvious she did not like it.

For over 5 years this restaurant has gotten good reviews in the NJ Zagat, the last issue prior to this critic becoming the local editor the Zagat review contained comments like "Best Mexican at the Jersey Shore" and "A happening bar" as well as "Long Waits."

Well, this local restaurant critic who has publically been on record as not liking this particular restaurant is named local editor of the Zagat and guess what? The Zagat listing for this place is now gone. Nada. Zip! The ratings were not lowered, the narrative was not made negative, the listing just dissapeared. The restaurant is still there, it still has hour long waits for tables, it's the largest Mexican restaurant in the county, they're still making a ton of money and satisfying a lot of diners, but the listing is gone. The history of the editors obvious dislike for this restaurant makes the sudden dissapearance of it from the guide seem awfully suspicious. The fact that the personal baggage brought into Zagat can be used to further the agenda of one of the local editors is disappointing.

[John Whiting]

In London I use the Timeout guide - I don't always agree with it but it is possible to calibrate one's taste against the descriptions offered.

Exactly. The second half of the sentence is crucial. I'm always surprised at how much information, both objective and subjective, the Time Out guides can pack into a short paragraph. Nor is it the "all things to all men" anonymity of Zagat.

My selection of the (approximately) thirty Paris bistros covered in my own web site was based in the first instance on the Paris Time Out Guide, also taking into consideration Jeffrey Steingarten's favorites as listed in Vogue. I ended up actually disliking only two of them, and that may have been as the result of unique experiences which would not be repeated on a second visit.

Now, this is not meant to represent the *best* thirty bistros in Paris, only a personal selection arrived at by personal criteria. But I find it illuminating that, for me, the Paris Time Out Guide led me only twice into unpleasant dining. http://www.whitings-writings.com/parbisindex.htm

In London I use it regularly as a point of first reference for unfamiliar places in the lower-middle to lower price bracket. I know three of their regular reviewers rather well, and trust their judgement implicitly. (One is the author of a magisterial prize-winning survey of Sezuan food, based on several years residence.)

So how do they stack up against eGullet? At the top end I don't know, nor am I likely to find out. Lower down, those restaurants that have been covered here in detail benefit from fifty to a hundred times the column inches to make their exhaustive points; I can't offhand think of any eGullet favorites that received *bad* Time Out reviews. Beyond that, there are dozens if not hundreds of places that eGullet members just haven't got around to mentioning.

In summary I would use our own reviews to *include*, but not necessarily to *exclude*. And if I were to have only one source available, it would have to be Time Out.

[Orik]

1. Don't you find it odd that The French Laundry is third most popular in SF? what does that mean? How about popularity in NYC?

2. Do you think a current critic would say that Picholine, Aureole and Al's soup kitchen all deserve the same food score? How about Corner Bistro? according to zagat it STILL serves the best burger in town.

3. If zagat does indeed match the current critical opinion, why is it needed?

Personally, I have found it to be a poor predictor of how enjoyable my dining experience would be. It matches critical opinion, but carries long tails for reasons widely discussed here and elsewhere and it does not make the obvious use of technology for classification (i.e. give me your ranks for 10 places and I'll tell you what you'll think some others).

[Fat Guy]

NYC -- Daniel, Chanterelle, Le Bernardin, Nobu, and Jean Georges, in that order, all 28

. . .

I don't expect anyone to gasp. These are not controversial scores. I don't think anyone would disagree with them . . .

They are controversial and I most certainly disagree with them. I think Chanterelle clearly doesn't belong -- it is most likely in there because it was a four-star-caliber restaurant a decade ago. Nobu I can live with, but its inclusion would require the inclusion of at least two other Japanese restaurants and probably three or four -- it is in there because it's better known than Sushi Yasuda or Kuruma Zushi and not because it's better. Likewise, the omissions of Ducasse and Lespinasse speak volumes -- I think that along with Jean Georges and Le Bernardin they are the elite group.

The following restaurants have four stars from the New York Times:

Ducasse

Bouley

Daniel

Jean Georges

Le Bernardin

Lespinasse

That's a list I can respect, even if I disagree with a minor point here and there. The Zagat "28" list, which overlaps with a mere 50% of those choices, is not one I'd want to get stuck defending.

But the problems with Zagat are so numerous and so deep it's not really possible to explain them simply by reference to the rankings. That Zagat recognized Jean Georges as an excellent restaurant proves only that it doesn't take a genius to realize that Jean Georges is an excellent restaurant. It's in the elevated rankings of mediocre restaurants that Zagat shows its true colors. And there's more, for those of you eager to read a really long article . . .

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1061/4_1...451/print.jhtml

[chopjwu12]

not only do i not trust the zagat restaurant guide all that much but, there ny marketplace guide is worse. They7 have all thye wrong information in there. Wrong adresses and bad reviews. But thats just my experiences.

[John Whiting]

Steven, your Zagat report is a model of how it should be done.

One gains the love of the Zagat reader by serving tuna burgers (as does the Union Square Cafe--and very good ones at that

That says something very perceptive, which can quite legitimately be read from two opposing viewpoints.

... Nader-like appeals to democracy and "the people."  . . . It is as if the editors of Consumer Reports were to declare that their patient, meticulous, objective, and very expensive testing of air conditioners and washing machines actually resulted in a less accurate product guide than one based solely on the random and self-selected reports of buyers, whose opinions alone they would henceforth solicit.

An unfairly loaded contrast, inasmuch as Nader's reputation was built on a CR-like exposure of auto defects, even though he didn't have the same elaborate research facilities to back them up.

But that's merely the quibbling of a knee-jerk liberal. Thanks for providing a link to your article, which I've wanted to read for some time.

[Fat Guy]

You've reminded me, John, that I had a tuna burger -- and several other items -- at Union Square Cafe just this past Saturday. It really was delicious, as was everything else. Shame on me for not posting about it. I hope to do so today. And shame on Zagat for so overrating Union Square Cafe as to put those of us who enjoy the restaurant for what it is in the position of constantly knocking the place.

[glenn]

As Holly implies, the problem with the Zagat Guide is you don't know how reliable their reviewer base is. Back in the old days when they first started, one could be certain that only hard core foodies bothered to send in reviews. But now it could be anyone.

As Zagat's popularity has grown, the reviewers have become more diverse. One could make arguments for either -- hard core foodies who have expertise vs. the opinion of the average joe (shmoe). This is the DIY age and everyone has an equal voice. Unfortunately, such a system lends itself to manipulation. I've worked at 2 restaurants where the owner(s) encouraged the staff to send in favorable reviews to Zagat, Citysearch and the like. However, I still like the concept of Zagats, BUT, T. Zagat seems to be a little discriminatory in his basis for reviews, which more or less makes the guide worthless except for basic general info.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I agree that the Time Out Guide to London is very good and I've been using it for years. I've found some of my favorite places because of it like Patog which is something that Zagat would pobably never include. But their guide to NYC isn't nearly as good, nor is their guide to Paris. But I still don't understand the Zagat bashing. Their reviews are easily correctable by figuring a +/- factor of 2 points. Fat Guy's example of the 4 star restaurants in the city and what is missing doesn't really change anything and his example of Ducasse doesn't really set out a strong argument against Zagat. I can see giving Ducasse a score that is as low as 25. But in spite of the obvious flaws, I still find the guides useful if you adjust for their particular bias. Every reviewer has a bias that one needs to adjust for. What's the difference if that bias is created by one person or several thousand? Zagat is still an important resource because it contains a large list of restaurants that are ranked in a reasonable order. This is true especially in smaller cities. Because even though the scores might be inflated, the hiearchy of restaurants is usually accurate.

[Steve Klc]

Mark--we talk about specific restaurants, writers and critics all the time--why aren't you naming names? Who is the editor of the NJ Zagat? Which local newspaper do her reviews appear in?

I see you address this in the other thread--and I think it's worth reprinting here:

"I know that Andrea Clurfield, reviewer for the Asbury Park Press has had a running feud with Casa Comida for well over 10 years now. I know the owners and have been following this for a long time. The fact that Clurfield is now also the local editor of the NJ Zagat speaks volumes. Casa was listed in all the previous NJ Zagats until Clurfield took the reigns, in fact, in the 99 guide it is quoted as "The best Mexican on the Jersey Shore." The fact that a supposedly "objective" restaurant reviewer can use her position to play politics against establishments that she personally deems "unworthy" is an affront to anyone who thinks the free flow of information is a good thing."

Am I to understand that Casa Comida has been left out of the guide completely? Do you know who was the previous local NJ Zagat editor? I always thought a local editor was more of a compiler anyway--but now I'm not so sure.

A question--has anyone checked the Zagat website to see if Casa Comida is online?

[Kim WB]

One service that Zagat's provides is a description of the restaurant's ambiance... ie "business club" or "romantic". I much prefer a personal reccomendation... Recently, the heartland board gave me a couple of ideas for places in Chicago...and I compared those names to the Zagats to see which places fit the needs ( in this case, entertaining a lobbyist) of my visit. It was helpful in that respect.

[John Whiting]

What it comes down to is that no guide is reliable as an exclusive source, but that all of them are useful when they're intelligently interpreted and compared with each other. I try to stay up to date with all the Paris guides, both books and periodicals (though not the general guides that happen to include a few restaurants), and every one of them has given me at least one piece of information that made its purchase worthwhile. I'd go so far as to suggest that a clever bedridden author could write a guide to Paris restaurants based entirely on printed sources which would not be worthless. (With a bit of help from eGullet, of course!)

I suspect that the trickiest segment is the very top echelon, where apparently trivial things can make such an enormous difference. And it's not just league tables and who wins top marks -- unlike Formula One racing, getting there is *all* the fun!

[rich]

Once again - no two people will ever find the same things about the same restaurant. No food critic should ever sway someone from going to any establishment based on food - everyone's taste is different.

Zagat provides the most important elements - type of cuisine, ambiance, hours and days of operations and a "nutshell" overview of what to expect. The food - I'll judge what I like.

For those of us (eGullet members) who think our palate is more sophisticated then the "average person," it's way beyond time to wake up and smell the roses before there's no oxygen remaining at that high altitude (or attitude).

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, since you've so cleverly sorted out the collective bias of 20,000 Zagat reviewers, perhaps you can explain it to us. To me it seems an impossible task. With a single reviewer whose name is on every review he or she writes it's a simple matter to determine biases (doesn't like Japanese food) and adjust for them, of course. But how do you do it with Zagat? There's barely enough information in those editorial blurbs to give us anything to go on. But as I keep explaining the discussion of Zagat needs to focus on issues beyond the ultimate rankings -- that's just the end result. The big problems are in the means.

[macrosan]

For those of us (eGullet members) who think our palate is more sophisticated then the "average person," it's way beyond time to wake up and smell the roses before there's no oxygen remaining at that high altitude (or attitude).

That's just silly, Rich. It is, I believe, an obvious fact that some eGullet members do indeed have more sophisticated palates than other eGullet members and "average persons". That's not an elitist position, nothing to do with high altitude or attitude, it's just a matter of fact.

What is your problem with that ?

[Wilfrid]

I am always going to disagree with ratings in a guide like Zagat'. The second tier - broadly speaking - of NYC restaurants has some barmy scores. But I would find it all easier to swallow if they exchanged the "hilariously dumb" quotes for just brief, accurate descriptions of the cuisine served.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Rich - If we followed your logic, there wouldn't be experts at any discipline. It's simply not true. People who have eaten meals at the all of the worlds great restaurants have a greater breadth of experience then those people who have never stepped out of Manhattan. They use a different standard. Movies and music are pretty much the same. How many people agree that the top ten box office hits are the best movies or the top selling album is the best one?

Fat Guy - I don't think you have to sort them out. Most people here are experienced beyond those 20,000 people so their collective judgement doesn't apply to us. But, those 20,000 people also aren't stupid and while they might not have eaten as many plates of foie gras or knishes as you and I, I am willing to credit anyone who is willing to take the time and effort to respond to Zagat as someone who warrants a say in the matter. It just means the results have a margin of error that I feel I can cope with when reading the guides.

[=Mark]

Am I to understand that Casa Comida has been left out of the guide completely?  Do you know who was the previous local NJ Zagat editor?  I always thought a local editor was more of a compiler anyway--but now I'm not so sure.

Casa Comida is not listed in the current guide. The previous local editor was Charles Monaghan. I was under the impression that they just helped in the compilation, but the fact that a restaurant that I know Clurfield dislikes was dropped from the guide seems more than just a coincidence.

[Steve Klc]

Most definitely so, Mark--and speaks to Shaw's sense that the real focus of our Zagat attention should be on the means. And the means in this case are, shall we say, problematic. I'm glad you have pushed this issue forward, Mark.