Judging a restaurant based on one meal

[Wilfrid]

And another distinction: Do we judge restaurants on just one visit? Of course we do, frequently, for the reasons pointed out above - chiefly, that there are plenty more restaurants out there we can try.

But I think Fat Bloke is really asking whether it is reasonable or fair to judge a restaurant on just one visit. And I think it depends what the judgment is based on: a lapse in service, a straightforward error in the cuisine - no, of course those can be unlucky aberrations. On the other hand, I have often eaten in restaurants where it becomes clear pretty quickly that whoever is in the kitchen can't cook, and that the restaurant either doesn't know that or doesn't care. Unless one has good reason to believe that the regular chef or kitchen team are out for some reason, those restaurants you can quite fairly forget about.

[Robert Schonfeld]

Someone smart once said there are no three-star restaurants, only three-star meals.

Very clever, that.

I was using the French Laundry as an example in reply to your question, FG. Substitute the name of any restaurant, or all restaurants. The larger issue, the one that Danny Meyer, a businessman, understands, is that every customer should be treated alike. "Extras" for regulars is a different issue. My order of whatever-it-is should be exactly the same as yours, the distinguished food journalist, or Lizziee's, the regular, or Paul's and Joanne's. If it's a highly intensive dish, that's not my problem, that's Mr. Keller's problem. If it is necessary for one portion to be more pluperfectly prepared for a regular at the sacrifice of the quality of mine, then that is a flaw in his restaurant that would, in my mind, keep him from a three star rating. Again, extrapolate to the general.

At the conclusion of our first visit to the Quilted Giraffe, Mrs. Wine insisted that we take the restaurant's limo home, a ride of three blocks.

[bushey]

Ditto what Simon says.

If I have a poor or mediocre experience at a local restaurant I'll usually only give it another try if a few people whose opinions and tastes are close to mine rave about it.

If I love a place, it has to pass the "three time" rule -- if it wows me after the third visit, it goes on the list of favorites.

[phaelon56]

It really does depend on circumstances. If I see a multiplicity of problems, e.g. slow and/or unfriendly service, cleanliness issues, bad food across the board etc..... I'll be inclined to judge based on one visit. If there was a specific thing or two that wasn't right or perhaps a number if things not quite right but I think they're sincere and trying to do the right thing, I'll generally give them another try. One of the things I look for is management that seems to care about the experience they're trying to offer customers. I just tried a new French-Moroccan place in my NJ town (Medina in Rutherford). It's just not hitting it yet on the service or the food but one of the appetizers was outstanding, they're nice people and it's a lovely room. I'll try them again in a few months. I tend to be very careful about passing along negative reviews as word of mouth can get so distorted but if I get treated shabbily and have a bad experience that management made no attempt to rectify after it was brought to their attention... I dont' hesitate to share that info here or elsewhere. I ate dinner once at Mexicali Rose in Montclair, a festive, noisy and popular Mexican restaurant whose food is good. Had a great meal but the waiter informed us he could not sell us dessert because the manager said "we need the table". We had been there a total of 45 miniutes or less and had all order full entrees and drinks (we weren't just taking up space gabbing or eating salsa and chips). That was such bad business on the part of management that I never hesitate to share that experience with others. I have not returned there and will not do so unless it changes hands

[TheMan,TheMyth]

Totally dimissing a restaurant over one dish isn't entirely fair, but if three or four courses are inconsistent, I think you can form a reasonable opinion about a chef or restaurant. I think I can identify a bad meal that has the potential to be a good meal. If I see this potential I may return, but I can tell when a chef is just totally off base in their technique.

First impressions are very important in the restaurant industry. That's one reason why opening a restuarant can be a risky venture. What happens when a salesman presents a product to a client that fails the first time it is demonstrated? They are usually sent away immediately. You can't fault the client for not wanting to give you a second chance. You have proven your product can be unreliable and inconsistent. I am hestitant to put money towards an unreliable product. The food doesn't always have to be spectacular, but it should always be reliable.

The Man, The Myth

TapItorScrapIt.com

[Fat Guy]

What happens when a salesman presents a product to a client that fails the first time it is demonstrated?

Another idea for a new thread.

[Beachfan]

I think I've done the math here

FG is right, it's the number of observations, not the percent that drives accuracy. And unbiased samples are key.

Let's define "judging" as whether you would go back again given plenty of other options.

I think the salesman demo is a spot on illustration. So is taking a taxi to JFK where the driver get's lost. Would you take that driver again?

On the other hand, if your star player strikes out, do you keep them out of the lineup the next day?

It all comes down to your expectation on consistency. If you expect consistency, and get a bad meal, you won't go back. If you expect a lot of variation, then getting a bad meal could just be the luck of the draw.

[Andy Lynes]

The answer to the question posed by this thread is yes. It had better be, as the vast majority of the reviews on my site, and the comments I make on eGullet are on the basis of a single visit to a restaurant. If something goes hideously wrong, then you just have to make a value judgement about it's cause. It is because the restaurant is in fact crap, or is it a "bad night" for them? If it's a stunningly good experience, you have to make a similar judgement about the liklihood of that experience being shared by others or repeated by you at another time.

I would also guess that, given the speed at which restaurants are reviewed in the UK, many critics on this country write on the basis of a single experience (I think Jay Rayner for his own part has said as much elsewhere on these boards). As long as you know, or can safely assume it's a review based on a single visit, there's no harm in my mind.

Steven obviously just didn't like the FL experience, and that wont fundamentaly change, no matter how many times he goes back (unless they have a major change of heart about what they are doing there, which seems uinlikely at this point).

[cabrales]

I will go as just another anonymous, infrequent diner, and I bloody well want the exact same level of quality in service and food as the local who is there once a week, beginning with the reservation process, and ending with the way we are seen off at the door.

Robert -- Appreciating that this follow-up is arguably tangential, are you saying only that an infrequent diner at a given restaurant should have the same general *quality level* of food and service as the "regular", with which I might agree? Or are you saying that the infrequent visitor should also have the same access to off-menu items, extra dishes and other special treatment that the restaurant may choose to accord to regular diners -- an outcome that may be unrealistic to expect, in my mind.

[Holly Moore]

That means the critic has experienced 4/62.000 or .0065 percent of a restaurant's yearly output.

Holly, based on my limited knowledge of statistics the .0065 percent is not the relevant number. When public opinion polls are taken in this nation of 300,000,000 people there are typically 1,200 people polled. That's .0004 percent (I think -- someone check my math; I did it in my head), yet if the sample group is carefully chosen to be representative of the whole population then polls are quite reliable at determining the statistical likelihood of what the entire population would answer if asked the same questions as the sample group. Even if you cut that big number down to be only registered voters or whatever, the percentage of the sample size versus the total is insignificant. The real question is, what is the value of asking more people the same question? Are you likely to get substantially different answers if you keep asking? At some point you say no, we're pretty much within the margin of error that a rational person would consider acceptable.

Odds are that your limited knowledge of statistics is surpassed only by my limited knowledge of statistics, but I suggest that comparing potential voters to restaurant meals is akin to comparing apples to antelopes. Voters, especially those from the vast silent majority, are far less complex and far more predictable than a restaurant meal.

There are so many things that can go wrong in a restaurant and many of them, once they occur, like the first domino in a long chain, set off a dynamic reaction that turns an evening's meal turnout into a disaster. True, one measure of a restaurant is how it handles these disasters, how well it maintains it's consistency, but every restaurant has had nights, probably too many nights, where they praise the Lord the reviewer from the Times was dining elsewhere.

Some of these things that go wrong can impact a restaurant for a week. Or a month or more. Best example is a chef storming out of the kitchen on a Friday night. So let's say a reviewer hits the place that weekend. Comes back a couple of weeks later. No new chef has been hired, the sous chef is doing his best, but the food is maybe 85 percent there. That's two dinners. The reviewer does the write up. Gives the place a B- in whatever pictograph he's chosen to instantly communicate his impression, and moves on.

A few weeks later a great new chef is found, or the sous chef comes of age, and the food is back at 100 percent. Only problem is, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of reviewable restaurant and that hapless restaurant is branded with a B- for five or more years until a new writer has taken over the reviewer's job and returns to that restaurant.

If the reviewer is from some apartment complex's newsletter, it's not that serious. If he's from the Times - the restaurant is way up the creek. It wouldn't be all that bad if the public took restaurant reviews with a few grains of salt. But alas, as goes a major reviewer, so goes a majority of his readers - those that read the pictograph rating and move on to the TV schedule and the few that actually read the entire column.

I've said before that I'm not a fan of negative restaurant reviews. In Philadelphia, much less New York City, there are far too many good dining experiences to squander column inches on bad ones. The bad ones die out soon enough.

[ngatti]

I'm sure the person I sent this PM to won't mind if I post its contents. I think it's germaine.

I had great expectations for this meal. I pull up on a Saturday night a little before my res. No effin' valet. Inexcusable on a Saturday for a restaurant of this purported level.

Okay so I park (far away) on the street as the parking lot is full! and my wife hikes in heels to the door. Our Table is not ready. The podium is chaos. The place is obviously way overbooked. We waited over 40 minutes for our table. No "I'm sorry", no offer of a drink in the bar, no explanation at all. I just got to wait in the little alley in front of the podium with the rest of the angry diners. The management at the podium has perfected the trick of never making eye contact with the angry customers!

We're finally seated in a noisy, smelly, and from the looks of the carpet obviously unclean dining room. The sneering waiter takes our order. An asshole reject from an old Brooklyn wedding factory.

This was a while ago so your experience may be different. But the Black bean soup was horrible. I particularly liked the devoid of meat, soft, pork bones that were used as a garnish!(yeah right!) The paella just sucked. I've been to Andalusia in Spain twice. This place was the Bizarro World of southern Spanias cooking. I stayed because I was sent on a research trip, to see how they do lobsters. I should have put in for combat pay. Having the meal paid for wasn't enough. Plce was horrible, in every aspect of the hospitality business. It wasn't just an off night. One gets a sense for these things. This seems to be the way they do things.

Nick

Sometimes one visit is enough. It was for me this time.

I left the restaurants name out. I'll tell privately.

Nick

[Fat Guy]

Jean Georges?

[ngatti]

Jean Georges?

Very good, FG! Nah, it was a local joint here in Jersey.

Should I start signing off as "The Angry Chef' again??

Nick

[tommy]

This comes up all the time in food discussion, in various contexts: Can you judge a restaurant based on one meal?

yes. does anyone have to listen? no. do they have to listen if i've been there 100 times? no. can i judge a thread by its first post? yes: this one is lame.

[Fat Guy]

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

[tommy]

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

jean georges?

love to all you. seriously.

[macrosan]

love to all you.  seriously.

Whassat ? Somebody parse that for me, pleeeeeze (preferably Tommy, but I don't hold out much hope)