Restaurant Reviewers

[lizziee]

As a flip side to FG's question who is the best restaurant reviewer, I would like for members to ponder an alternative - complete anonymity for all newspaper reviewers.

I wonder what would happen if newspapers stopped the use of bylines for their restaurant reviewers. Instead of a review by William Grimes et al, it would be a review by a reporter or group of reporters from the New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Washington Post. The restaurant critic would truly be anonymous; nobody, neither the restaurateur nor the public would know who the critic was. The critic would have no "star power", no need for useless disguises, no special treatment, no recognition value. Of course, this is assuming that the reviewers chosen have some expertise. But, we never know who the "Michelin Men" are and in fact don't even know the criteria for their evaluations.

[Rail Paul]

The bergen record in NJ uses a team approach for restaurant reviews. Six people alternate. John Foy, a restaurant owner, is one. Marge Perry, a decent observer, is another. Several other reviewers may be taste deprived.

There's not a lot of consistency. With most reviews, you match the flavor of a review against your experience with the place. With six people, no way to establish consistency for stars, service, etc.

[lizziee]

First, you know their names. Second, why does Michelin work?

[jordyn]

Lizziee:

I think your idea is great. I wonder how it would affect the ability of the publication to attract quality reviewers, however.

[Fat Guy]

Lizziee: In what way is anything in Michelin a review?

Would you single out restaurant reviewers and reviews for this kind of anonymity treatment, or would you also apply it to film critics, art critics, etc.? How about sports writers? All writers?

[ngatti]

The bergen record in NJ uses a team approach for restaurant reviews. Six people alternate. John Foy, a restaurant owner, is one. Marge Perry, a decent observer, is another. Several other reviewers may be taste deprived.

There's not a lot of consistency. With most reviews, you match the flavor of a review against your experience with the place. With six people, no way to establish consistency for stars, service, etc.

Even crazier Paul. At last count 11!

Nick

[lizziee]

Fat Guy,

You are correct, Michelin is not a review, but a rating. But by its anonymity, it eliminates any and all bias.

As for art or film critics et al, I think it is very different, The work is a finished project. My review is not at all dependent upon special treatment. A restaurant reviewer is getting something especially created for him or her. What other critical writer can claim that kind of treatment?

[Fat Guy]

You are correct, Michelin is not a review, but a rating. But by its anonymity, it eliminates any and all bias.

I don't see how anonymity eliminates bias, or affects it at all.

As for art or film critics et al, I think it is very different, The work is a finished project. My review is not at all dependent upon special treatment. A restaurant reviewer is getting something especially created for him or her. What other critical writer can claim that kind of treatment?

I see special treatment as a species of influence peddling, which can happen in any area of criticism.

[lizziee]

FG,

Influence peddling can happen anywhere. But, in cuisine, a chef can change the product- the finished result.

[Fat Guy]

The way I see it, the nature of restaurants (buffets and shared portions aside) is that everybody gets a different meal. It seems inevitable in such an environment that some people will conclude that others are getting better meals than they are, and that this fear will foster resentment. The argument that a restaurant reviewer will get a better meal than the average customer plays to this fear, and the disguises and the sneakiness serve to reinforce it. Any time I tell anybody I have at times reviewed restaurants one of the first questions I get (after, "Really, I've never heard of you," and "What's your favorite restaurant?") is "Do you wear wigs?" But nobody seems to ask book reviewers questions like, "Hey, didn't you write the competing book on the same subject? How can you write a fair review under those circumstances?" Nobody seems to ask art critics, "Hey, aren't you friends with the artist?" There is nothing in the restaurant reviewing community to rival the kind of incestuousness that is so prevalent in so many other forms of criticism. That the product is immutable does nothing to lessen the ability of the artist or publicist to curry favor with the critic. It does nothing to address the fundamental issues of bias and dishonesty that should really be worrying us. This is all quite aside from the pragmatic debate over how much the chef can really do when a critic is recognized, as well as what the critic should be reviewing: The restaurant at its best or the average meal.

[lizziee]

" It does nothing to address the fundamental issues of bias and dishonesty that should really be worrying us."

I totally agree with you on the above point. That is why I proposed my question when you asked for the best reviewers in the world. I predict that the list will be short.

Our area of disagreement has to do with "how much the chef can really do when a critic is recognized." I think a great deal from service, to actual preparation, to presenation. I might have a bias towards a certain author or artist, but the author or artist can't change his work to suit my taste or be extra careful that everything is to the "best of his ability." A book or a painting is done, finished, ready for everyone to experience the same end result. We might review it differently according to our bias, but we are reviewing the same thing. That just is not true with cuisine.

[Letseatsomemore]

The bergen record in NJ uses a team approach for restaurant reviews. Six people alternate. John Foy, a restaurant owner, is one. Marge Perry, a decent observer, is another. Several other reviewers may be taste deprived.

How do you know foy is a restaurant owner? I've heard of Dennis Foy, who owned several restaurants, but not John. Also, when you say several are taste deprived, is this because they don't agree with your taste or do you not like their writing? I'm curious because I've gone to restaurants based on a reviewers recommendations and I have not always agreed with them but at the same time I didn't think them taste deprived. I chalked it up to differences in personal preference unless the service was awful and the food had serioius problems.

[Rail Paul]

The bergen record in NJ uses a team approach for restaurant reviews. Six people alternate. John Foy, a restaurant owner, is one. Marge Perry, a decent observer, is another. Several other reviewers may be taste deprived.

How do you know foy is a restaurant owner? I've heard of Dennis Foy, who owned several restaurants, but not John. Also, when you say several are taste deprived, is this because they don't agree with your taste or do you not like their writing? I'm curious because I've gone to restaurants based on a reviewers recommendations and I have not always agreed with them but at the same time I didn't think them taste deprived. I chalked it up to differences in personal preference unless the service was awful and the food had serioius problems.

There was an extensive thread (129 posts) on the Bergen Record's reviewing practices. One reviewer contributed her thoughts as well. It was a lively and generally constructive exchange. Suffice it to say the quality of reviews varies widely.

Bergen Record Thread 1

The brothers Foy have also been discussed at length here. John is currently consulting, I believe. There's also a discussion of whether a restaurant consultant should be reviewing places which compete with his clients, as well.

Rather than clog this thread with comments on the Record, we could resume over on the NJ thread where two Record threads are now active.

[wingding]

Conceptually,I love the idea of a group of qualified[!],anonymous reviewers.Maybe the kitchen,and waitstaff would treat every customer as a potential reviewer,and treat their experience accordingly.That would be exciting...Also different points of view about the dining experience should be,which vary some from one writer to another,would be more beneficial to diners.

[russ parsons]

lizzieee wrote:

You are correct, Michelin is not a review, but a rating. But by its anonymity, it eliminates any and all bias.

it does not eliminate bias, it merely disguises it, so you don't know whose biases you're reading. having been an anonymous restaurant critic at one point, i can say that it is extremely uncomfortable. all critics (or raters ... see the great book on Loiseau) have their biases. there is no such thing as an objective reality when it comes to dining. what readers need to know is who the critics are and what their biases are so they can judge for themselves.

[Suvir Saran]

lizzieee wrote:

You are correct, Michelin is not a review, but a rating. But by its anonymity, it eliminates any and all bias.

it does not eliminate bias, it merely disguises it, so you don't know whose biases you're reading. having been an anonymous restaurant critic at one point, i can say that it is extremely uncomfortable. all critics (or raters ... see the great book on Loiseau) have their biases. there is no such thing as an objective reality when it comes to dining. what readers need to know is who the critics are and what their biases are so they can judge for themselves.

Bingo! Thanks for that honest paragraph Russ!

Michelin guide, Zagat, every food critic, even diners, all carry their own prejudice and biases. You are so right. We need to know who is writing and that makes for a much better review. I would rather read a review by a writer I can find out something about than read a guide be it Michelin or Zagat or any other.

[Suvir Saran]

it does not eliminate bias, it merely disguises it, so you don't know whose biases you're reading. having been an anonymous restaurant critic at one point, i can say that it is extremely uncomfortable.

I cannot agree with you more. Even after my post above, I was still contemplating what you said and how well you said it.

Across the world we have become easily fooled by that which is silver coated and disguised. Many a times we are even swayed to believe what comes disguised in ways we have given great credibility and social status to. But that still cannot hide the bias. It is us being blind to reality. But the skeletons are there and just hidden, even if in some deep dark dungeon.

[Bux]

Bingo indeed. Russ sems to have been the first to point that out. All humans have some biases. It's not possible to eliminate the subjective in reviews of food, film, art, music, etc. There's a reason we don't all honor the same critics.

It would be interesting to learn the roster of Michelin inspectors over the years. I'm not a great one for consipracy theories, but you have wonder how it happens that after years of respect a certain restaurant finally goes from two to three stars just as the supporters have all but given up and perhaps who it is that keeps Roellinger at two stars.

[lizziee]

The bias I am refering to is not the critic's bias or subjectivity, but the favored treatment of the chef to the critic. Bias was obviously a poorly chosen word.

To quote myself:

Our area of disagreement has to do with "how much the chef can really do when a critic is recognized." I think a great deal from service, to actual preparation, to presenation. I might have a bias towards a certain author or artist, but the author or artist can't change his work to suit my taste or be extra careful that everything is to the "best of his ability." A book or a painting is done, finished, ready for everyone to experience the same end result. We might review it differently according to our bias, but we are reviewing the same thing. That just is not true with cuisine.

"We might review it differently according to our bias" --- I absolutely acknowledge that reviews are subjective but what I find with the not so cleverly disguised reviewer is a tendency to get preferential treatment. I am also not suggesting the complete elimination of by-line reviews, but I would love to see a Michelin type system in the States that was in addition to what we have now.

[Suvir Saran]

Bingo indeed. Russ sems to have been the first to point that out. All humans have some biases. It's not possible to eliminate the subjective in reviews of food, film, art, music, etc. There's a reason we don't all honor the same critics.

It would be interesting to learn the roster of Michelin inspectors over the years. I'm not a great one for consipracy theories, but you have wonder how it happens that after years of respect a certain restaurant finally goes from two to three stars just as the supporters have all but given up and perhaps who it is that keeps Roellinger at two stars.

Bingo Again!

Bux you are right on target... One does wonder. And so many do not. Or do they? But simply do not speak aloud... but if that is the case, how would we ever know? Russ did bring out a very important point. Most salient.

[Fat Guy]

One more thing on bias . . .

Anonymity (of authorship) is the best friend bias can have, because anonymity precludes accountability.

Now, back to the other point . . .

[marcus]

The issue really is objectivity versus subjectivity. Michelin is so good because they aim at objectivity. They have developed a scoring sheet, which I believe is a trade secret, and they train their inspectors to score the same way. The restaurant is then visited by multiple inspectors. There may be individual biases and differences in competency, but overall you have highly trained professional inspectors judging by objective criteria. Gault Millau is, I believe similar, but not as rigorous, fewer inspectors, probably less trained. What makes it interesting, in addition to the written reviews, is a different scoring sheet which provides higher weighting to innovation and cutting edge cuisine. That's why many of the no star 16 and 17 restaurants can often be so disappointing.

My understanding is that Michelin inspectors do introduce themselves after the meal in order to inspect the kitchen.

Zagat is also objective, but the quality of the inspectors is obviously very low. There is also no statistically valid comparability between the scores of any two restaurants, a point that I made on the Zagat thread which didn't seem to get any traction. This lack of comparability significantly reduces the meaningfulness of the results.

I personally do not like the food at Roellinger and would be disappointed to see it get three stars. The basic foodstuffs are very well prepared, but his application of Asian fusian spicing to me was close to unpleasant. This has been my general impression in France, but I expected better here, but it was not to be.

[Fat Guy]

Zagat is also objective, but the quality of the inspectors is obviously very low.  There is also no statistically valid comparability between the scores of any two restaurants, a point that I made on the Zagat thread which didn't seem to get any traction.  This lack of comparability significantly reduces the meaningfulness of the results.

Your Zagat point has total traction with me.

Now your Michelin point . . . well, I disagree on a number of levels, but primarily I think that if Michelin is objective (I'll assume it for the moment) the reason for its success (which I'll also assume for now) isn't that the scoring system is so rigorous but rather that pretty much every restaurant in France is French. So you can score them on the same scorecard. Now, the objective/scorecard system breaks down under two main sets of circumstances: 1) When the chef shows creativity and departs from the norm, therefore moving into the realm of subjectivity (to use your implicit definition of objectivity for contrast); or 2) When the restaurant is unusual in some other way (for example Michelin is simply not equipped to rate non-French restaurants in a meaningful way). So basically, it is France's traditional culinary culture that allows Michelin to be accurate to whatever extent it is accurate, and it is France's changing culinary culture that is making Michelin obsolete as a rating system. It's only a matter of time. And of course it could never work in the US or even in the UK.

[marcus]

Fat Guy, I absolutely agree with your point that Michelin only works for French restaurants in France. Even in Italy it's totally worthless. However, I do believe that they are successfully including cutting edge French restaurants such as Michel Bras and Pierre Gagnaire into their system, although it has taken them awhile. Whether the Michelin system could be extended to a diverse place like NYC is an interesting question, but I believe that it might be possible. Michelin did consider doing a NYC red guide about 15 years ago, but decided against it. The reason that I recall reading was that they couldn't tolerate the level of inconsistency.

I was trying to make a point relating the comments of posters regarding restaurant reviewers and Michelin ratings. In general, Michelin at least in France has gotten very largely favorable comments on these boards. This has far exceeded the favorability quotient of any individual reviewer. My point was that the issue isn't bias or suchlike, but objectivity versus subjectivity.

[Fat Guy]

In general, Michelin at least in France has gotten very largely favorable comments on these boards.  This has far exceeded the favorability quotient of any individual reviewer.

That's because we're an English-language site and the only serious option is Patricia Wells. When her books were a bit more current and she hadn't gone into her decline phase, I relied on her almost to the exclusion of Michelin.

I don't see how you'd work it in the United States, and I don't see how it's going to last in France. If it does last it will be due to inertia and brand-recognition only, and not merit. The inconsistency argument, if that was indeed made, is an excuse not a reason.