Restaurant Reviewers

[macrosan]

My approach to guides is strictly heuristic. I use a guide a few times, if I find I agree with it I use it again , if I don't I junk it and find another.

I don't want or need to research the reviewers and their biasses, I will discover whether their biasses match my preferences by experimentation. There is surely no better method than that to select a guide, and I assume that most people do the same.

Behind that, I also find it interesting to debate intellectual honesty and purity, but that is quite distinct from my method of assessment.

For myself, I used and disliked the Michelin Guide, the Which Guide and the AA Guide (in the UK) and finally and permanently settled on Egon Ronay (RIP) which I used for many years. Indeed, I once employed an ex-inspector of the Ronay Guide (he specialized in pubs!!!) and gained from him an understanding and respect for how the Egon Ronay Guide "worked".

[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.

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.

John Foy was involved with Tarragon Tree in Chatham NJ. He was the Chef/owner of Sonoma grill in E Rutherford. To the best of my knowledge he no longer owns a restaurant.

Nick

[Steve Plotnicki]

I find that the real issue here is what you want accomplished. If you want to ensure that a restaurant serves you the absolute average meal, with no bow to the critics notariety, then anonymity of the reviewer is neccessary. And then if you want to remove editorial slant, you make the critics anonymous. However, and Fat Guy gets to the issue of why, I would find that review almost totally useless. I don't want the average meal, I want the best meal. I don't care how I get it either. I'm quite happy if a chef rolls out the red carpet for a reviewer, even though it's not the typical meal in that restaurant. But when I go there, now I know about it and I can ask for it. So I conclude that more information is always better.

As to a reviewers bias, again, that's more information not less. For example, I had a disasterous meal at La Pyramide in 2001. While the restaurant had all the trappings of a 3 star, even though it actually only has two, it would be a zero star for food as far as I'm concerned. And I know at least 4-5 other people who dined there in the months before and after I did that felt the same way. For my purposes, I want to see an in depth discussion that speaks of exactly why it merits two stars. And, if the inspectors are disclosed and I understand their personal likes and dislikes, I can better assess why it got that rating. So once again, more information is better than less and the names of the inspectors is more.

I think the most important piece of information you can get from a review is where in the range of their rating is a restaurant performing. For example, La Pyramide is an underperforming two star, Leon de Lyon performs at their rating. A place like l'Astrance outperforms it's single star, as did Violon d'Ingress when they had one star but I find that they are a weak two. For me the missing link that Michelinn doesn't publish is the rationale. But that's just another example of more information not less. As to Michelin's anonymity, I think it works well because they have inextricably tied luxury to quality. Things like no hotel restaurant with three stars (broken when Ducasse opened Louis XV but still basically true) just means they aren't taking any chances. When you don't take chances it's easy to appear objective. If you want to eat the way the Michelin inspectors eat, then their guide is perfect for you. But if you want to eat better than that (and I do) you need more information than they offer. In fact you need more information than Gault Millau offers.

[Fat Guy]

Since total anonymity is unattainable (there will always be information leaks) and has so many negatives (I think they are overwhelming) the more logical way to level the playing field is for critics always to be announced. This ends the potential for unequal evaluation (not that I think the potential is all that great) when some restaurants recognize critics and others don't. It also ends the whole game of double-secret-non-recognition-recognition that restaurants and critics sometimes play and that both restaurateurs and critics claim to win 100% of the time.

It also conforms best to this particular tenet of ethical journalism:

"Journalists should . . . Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story."

https://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp

[jordyn]

Fat Guy: With the exception of allowing bias to remain hidden, what are the negatives to anonymity that you see as being so overwhelming:

Steve P: The best meal is perhaps an interesting read, but so far at least, not very relevant to me. Most of the time I can't have it, so why do I care that someone else did?

Wouldn't anonymous reviewers encourage restaurants to perform as close to their perfect level as possible, knowing that any potential diner could be a reviewer?

[Fat Guy]

Wouldn't anonymous reviewers encourage restaurants to perform as close to their perfect level as possible, knowing that any potential diner could be a reviewer?

They already know that and it doesn't help!!!

With the exception of allowing bias to remain hidden, what are the negatives to anonymity that you see as being so overwhelming

I'm referring to the proposal in the first post on this thread. It's not just a question of allowing bias to remain hidden, it's also a question of lack of accountability. It may even be unethical to publish extensive and repeated criticism without a byline -- I'd have to think about it, but it sure doesn't smell right to me. Do you think pseudonyms in general are ethical for critics? (Like, if I was Fat Guy but never revealed that I'm Steven Shaw?) Then there's the question of the committee. Michelin is one species of committee: You're taking an average of supposed experts to get a rating. But a review doesn't work like that: For the most part, only one person can write a review. So if you have a committee you're rotating voices, so you have the worst of the committee system plus the worst of the individual system.

The best meal is perhaps an interesting read, but so far at least, not very relevant to me.  Most of the time I can't have it, so why do I care that someone else did?

Why do you feel you can't have it?

[lizziee]

"Since total anonymity is unattainable (there will always be information leaks) and has so many negatives (I think they are overwhelming) the more logical way to level the playing field is for critics always to be announced."

FG, I think this is the crux of the issue. It takes away the cat and mouse, gotcha aspect of anonymous restaurant reviewing. The Craig Laban article in the Journalism thread points this out. (Craig Leban).

If a critic has the power to make or break a restaurant, then I feel it is his/her responsibilty to not set up a restaurant to do less than their best, particularly in those first crucial three months. Also, it gives a level playing field to every restaurant. Most of the high-end restaurant chefs/owners/staff know who the critic is and "play the game" accordingly.

Steve P. says, "I'm quite happy if a chef rolls out the red carpet for a reviewer, even though it's not the typical meal in that restaurant. But when I go there, now I know about it and I can ask for it. So I conclude that more information is always better."

Steve, I also agree with this as well. Why not go into a reviewed restaurant, mention that fabulous dish that XYZ critic had, and say, "I would love to have that wonderful dish that XYZ described?"

At the beginning of this thread, as a result of conversations with chefs/owners/staff, I felt that anonymous was better. I must say that I have changed my mind, given FG's parameters, which I would love to see employed. My problem is with the extraordinary power that a LaBan or a Bauer or a Grimes has, the not so clever disguises, "I'm just your average Joe diner", and the "gotcha attitude", even when the critic professes not to have one.

As an aside, Irene V., the LA critic (not my personal favorite) has started a First Impressions column. Rather than review a restaurant during that shake-down period, she gives first impressions letting the restaurant as well as the public know which direction the restaurant is going, what she sees as some pitfalls, pluses etc.

As for Steve P's remarks re Michelin --- there is a huge difference between a two star on the way down and a two star on the way up and he is absolutely correct that Michelin gives no clue which way the wind is blowing. For us La Pyrmaide was a disaster and Auberge et Clos des Cimes a wonder. Both are two stars, but the former is definitely on the way down and I would love to see the latter get a third.

[Fat Guy]

Maybe Michelin could add a wind sock to its ideography.

[lizziee]

Would you write Michelin and suggest it?!

[jordyn]

The best meal is perhaps an interesting read, but so far at least, not very relevant to me.  Most of the time I can't have it, so why do I care that someone else did?

Why do you feel you can't have it?

Because, even if I can order whatever secret dishes the critic got, I certainly can't simply ask for the same level of service and attention the critic would have received. Since service is an integral part of the meal, this almost ensures a differential between the critic's meal and mine.

I'm not sure I can even get the secret dishes, though. Does anyone have examples of fabulous items mentioned in a review or write-up of a New York restuarant that are not on the menu? I will be glad to go try and order them at various places as part of a survey of such things.

[Fat Guy]

I think you're failing to take into account the iterated nature of serious restaurantgoing.

If I eat one meal at a top restaurant, what do I want to eat? I want to eat the signature dishes of the establishment, perhaps a whole bunch of them in tasting portions. Why would anybody want a secret dish on a first visit to a restaurant? It's not as though the secret dishes are better than the regular ones, at least not in my experience -- they're just there for variety and typically they change all the time because they're based on small quantities of stuff the chef is playing with. Maybe there are dramatically excellent secret dishes around town that blow away a restaurant's regular offerings but I can't think of any.

Now say I go there ten times. At this point I expect the chef to be making me off-menu stuff. As a reader and consumer I want to know as much as I can -- I'm just like Plotnicki in that regard. I want to know what I can get on my first meal and what I can get on my tenth. And maybe by knowing what I can get on my tenth I can push the envelope a bit on my first.

It's surprisingly easy to manipulate the level of service and attention you get in a good restaurant. So long as you go at a non-busy time and the servers aren't a bunch of cynical idiots they will respond to your desired level of service, if not on the first visit then certainly on the second.

[macrosan]

I am intrigued by the continued reference by experienced and knowledgeable people on this site to the "power" of food critics and reviewers.

It's clear to me that those critics and reviewers have no power over people here, not even influence. People here know them well, know their work, and either admire them or deride them. So what's the problem ?

Well it can only be that eGulleteers are concerned for "the masses", the uneducated, those other people out there. Isn't that patronising ? I would guess that those people "out there" can probably look after themselves in their own way. If they choose to be influenced by a bad critic, or an ill-defined guide, I would presume they're quite happy with the result. Otherwise they'd do what I do --- ignore it next time.

The only real influence a critic/reviewer has is a short term influence over the commercial success of a restaurant. If the critic/reviewere proves wrong too often (in other words if customers find often enough that they disagree with him, and stop reading or buying the guide) the critic/reviewer will pretty soon be out of a job. If he gives a good review to a bad restaurant, the restaurant will pretty soon be out of business anyway. If he gives a bad review to a good restaurant, I accept the restaurant may be in some early financial difficulties, but good marketing and reputation will soon bring in the diners.

The general perception of the power of food critics and reviewers, like that of theatre reviewers and the media in general, is in my view overblown. They have just as much power as the public are willing to allow them to have.

[Steve Klc]

Lizziee--is that Impressions column similar to the NY Times "Diner's Journal?" I always liked the concept behind that--a pre-review in other words and a way to get more timely information out, both to the restaurant itself and to the public.

Have you noticed a trend with Impressions where a full review will follow a pre-review?

[lizziee]

In reviewing a restaurant, the problem for both the critic and the diner, is that it is not a static situation. A restaurant is an evolving, ever-changing, dynamic thing. Staff changes in both the front and back of the house can alter the dining experience dramatically. There is also the problem for the critic to keep updating his own reviews - what he said 2 years ago, last year, even 6 months ago, might have changed.

Take the situation with Postrio in San Francisco. A couple of months ago, Bauer gave a scathing review saying that the restaurant was just a shell of what it once was. (In this case, he was right). I was interested to see if the Chronicle had updated its data base to reflect this recent review. It hadn't; Postrio was still listed as a three star with Bauer's glowing review from a number of years ago.

[jordyn]

Fat Guy: Plotnicki has expressed a desire to know about the best possible meal at a place. This may or may not include secret dishes, but seems unlikely to be order-able. ("Please just treat me like you do William Grimes, okay?") One can attempt to gain an understanding of that meal, and even to try and reproduce elements of it, but I would be surprised if the average diner had ready access to it. You yourself pointed out that restaurants do not perform consistently at their top level because of the vague threat that the average diner might be a reviewer; if they know you are *not* one, why would they get any closer?

I agree it's good to know about the range of a place if you are going to be eating there multiple times, but suspect that this has nothing to do with anonymity.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jordyn - I think there are two flaws in your assumption. One, aside from my own selfish motivations of wanting to have the best meal, we are all better off having the most information available to us. I think the general restaurant review, since it is limited to a certain amount of column inches tries to encapsulate what a restaurant serves in three paragraphs. In reality and if space was unlimited (and it gets close to it in publications like Gault Millau and Gourmet,) the perfect way to review a restaurant would be for all aspects to be written about in detail. So my point goes not to full disclosure so the elite can eat well, it goes to full disclosure so everybody starts with the same amount of info. Then each diner can tailor the experience to their own choosing.

The different ways this could impact on people's dining habits could be material. Let's for example say that you normally spend $100 on a meal and you eat out like that once a week. But then you found out that a top rated restauraunt serves a special meal for $200 a person and it sounded interesting. Might you decide to go for it and eat hamburgers and hot dogs the other week so you could afford it? And maybe as a result of doing it your perspective about dining changes? Could you do that if you didn't know?

The second flaw I believe is your statement that the type of meal I'm describing is unavailable to you. I think you're wrong. I find that restaurants prefer those types of customers. Why wouldn't they, the meals cost more money?

I see no difference between restaurants and the stock market. The more information you have, the better off you are. Fortunately there aren't any laws regarding information about restaurants being secret and confidential. Yet in spite of that, we have imposed some sort of quash on the best information because it is "fairer" to consumers. To me, that's an egalitarian principal that is well intended yet serves to harm the consumer who is entitled to *all the information* not just average information.

[rich]

Steve - don't you enjoy being surprised sometimes - it can be fun!

[lizziee]

Lizziee--is that Impressions column similar to the NY Times "Diner's Journal?"  I always liked the concept behind that--a pre-review in other words and a way to get more timely information out, both to the restaurant itself and to the public.

Have you noticed a trend with Impressions where a full review will follow a pre-review?

Steve,

Similar to Diner's Journal, but more in depth. She will mention dishes she liked as well as those she viewed less favorably. She will comment on the decor, ambience, service, but briefly. It definitely is not a review; the title says it all - A First Impression, a preview.

The actual review does not necessarily follow right away. There can be quite a time lapse or it can be a few months. There doesn't seem to be any hard fast rule.

[jordyn]

Steve P: By and large, I agree with everything you wrote. More information is good. One useful data point is the average diner's likely experience. That particular goal is facilitated through truly anonymous reviewers, if such a thing were possible. This doesn't mean that it's not useful to know a whole lot of other information about the restaurant as well. Some people will find various data points more interesting; others will find it less interesting. I really don't think we're at odds over general principles.

In terms of availability of special meals, you may be correct that restaurants are willing to put together more expensive and luxurious meal for those willing to pay (then again, others may not--as we discussed on the tasting menu thread a while back, some restaurants may prefer conformity to the menu for consistency's sake). Do you think that this represents the same experience that one of the most powerful critics in the country is likely to receive? Does paying twice as much money give you the same stature in the restaurant as someone who can make or break the place's future? I suspect the answer is no, but I confess I have no good data points because I've never dined with a famous critic, nor am I aware of any secretly orderable fancy menus that I might try to enjoy.

[Wilfrid]

How frequently do restaurants have secret meals which they only serve to those in the know? I don't count asking a restaurant to surprise you with a tasting menu - no secret that many restaurants will do that.

[jordyn]

Wilfrid: I'm not aware of any, but I don't have a very good insight into restaurant industry intrigue so I'm not privvy to very man secrets. However, I would suspect a large number of places would be able to concot a special meal if a well-known critic announced his or her presence and asked the kitchen to do its best. Steve P and Fat Guy seem to be indicating that I could enjoy the same meal, if only I know about it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Unless you fashion yourself to be the same as the average diner, the information listed in a review of a restaurant (supposing that is their goal) is already imperfect as to your circumstances. Some people would find reviews of the $20.02 meals useful. Others would find meals that cost $200.02 at the same place more useful. And then there are most people who are in the middle. I think that because restaurant reviewing isn't ordinarily accorded as much respect as the review of a film or an art exhibit, the reviews tend to be geared to a lowest common denominator theory. And while that might be "fair," I think that does the art of eating a great disservice. Because in reality there are many different experiences available in a restaurant. And restaurant reviewing would have a different thrust to it, and would include some of the things I have raised and I'm certain things others could raise as well, if reviewers had the space to write expansively.

One thing that is nice about eGullet is there isn't any space limitation. So if you have something to say about a restaurant, there is unlimited space to get it off of your chest. For those who come to the dining experience with an idea towards improving all aspects of dining, eGullet is more useful than any of the guidebooks are, providing there is a large enough group of knowledgable writers on a topic. I think there are better restaurant reviews on this site than you can get anywhere else. And not because the people who write restaurant reviews for newpapers aren't talented, it's because their jobs are so restricted by their publications. For example, I think there is more information on this site about eating at El Bulli then the combined printed literature available elsewhere. And since the site operates in real time, it's more current information too.

[Wilfrid]

I guess I'm just being dim, as usual, but I can't see where anonymity stands in the way of either going to a restaurant ten times or asking the kitchen to cook a special, off menu meal for you. I have done both those things, and my name isn't Ruth Reichl.

I agree, anonymity is almost impossible to preserve, and I'm not convinced it adds much. I just don't see how it detracts in the ways specified.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - No it isn't that anonymity causes the average meal, it's that the goal of anonymity *when one is recognizable* is to ensure that you are served the average meal. The reason you are able to ask for special meals and stay anonymous is that you are nobody. Oh that felt good.

[Wilfrid]

Edit: No, you got me good. I withdraw my response.