www.london-eating.co.uk

[chefmatt]

does anyone visit london-eating?

can anyone shed any light on why Tom's Kitchen is yet to make an appearance and why L'atelier de Joel Robuchon was on, then started getting bad reviews and has mysteriously disappeared from the sight?

Can you control whether or not you are on there or not?

[Infrasonic]

does anyone visit london-eating?

can anyone shed any light on why Tom's Kitchen is yet to make an appearance and why L'atelier de Joel Robuchon was on, then started getting bad reviews and has mysteriously disappeared from the sight?

Can you control whether or not you are on there or not?

←

http://www.london-eating.co.uk/reviews-we-cant-print.asp

Perhaps L'atelier had some lawyers look at whether the reviews were defamatory/slanderous? If they were they could have threatened LE with action.

It happened to a financial site I subscribe to (accusations of being a boiler room!), and even though the site won in court, they still removed all traces of the spat...

I had a couple of reviews knocked back by Sugarvine a few years ago for slating the restaurants concerned. SV were worried about losing advertising revenue.

I

Edited February 8, 2007 by Infrasonic (log)

[nikkib]

I think it takes a while for restaurants to get updated - scotts is not on there yet and the reviews seem to take a very long time to appear. L'atelier is on there still, all the negative reviews are still there under "older reviews" I keep an eye out on restaurants i have been to but would certainly not change my opinion of a restaurant, stop me from visiting one or decide to go pick a restaurant with positive reviews.

[GastroChick]

The problem with London Eating is the reliability of the reviews, there should be some kind of site where you have to register to review and your reviews are graded by the community such that you build up a reputation or similar.

[sunbeam]

Any restaurant can be added to london-eating and by anyone, there is a link on their front page to do so. Presumably no one from tom's kitchen has. But you could do it yourself.

LE seems careful to only print reviews that are 'fair comment' and not libellous. "I hated the food, it tasted disgusting" is okay, but "I got food poisoning' is not. But is odd that l'atelier had disappeared.

Gastrochick's point "The problem with London Eating is the reliability of the reviews, there should be some kind of site where you have to register to review and your reviews are graded by the community such that you build up a reputation or similar' is wrong I think.

The site is totally democratic and anyone can post without having to 'prove' themselves first which I find rather a disturbing notion. Who would be on this panel of self-elected gastro gods doing the approving? Ok, ok you lot, put your hands down In any case many of the punter reviews are thoughtful and well-written, just as some are mad stupid rants. It's up to the reader to sort the wheat from the chaff (or chavs).

One can always see a trend with the LE reviews. No matter how much I liked a restaurant if I hadn't been back for 3 months, and saw 99% bad punter reviews since on the site, I would regard that as a warning of possible problems, not of every other diner's lack of good taste!

S

[Zoticus]

London Eating is somewhat under-seasoned; i.e. the reviews should be taken with a generous pinch of salt.

For example, their top tens consistently feature this restaurant, Michael Moore. I don't claim encyclopedic knowledge of London's restaurants, but I have never heard of this place. Surprising, since it is supposedly so good.

[horton]

I loved this comment on LE:

"An useful tip if you opt for any Polish soup - taste it first and then

decide if you want more salt or seasoning in it. My soup didn't need any

of this and was very tasty".

[Matthew Grant]

[sunbeam]

I loved this comment on LE:

"An useful tip if you opt for any Polish soup - taste it first and then

decide if you want more salt or seasoning in it. My soup didn't need any

of this and was very tasty".

←

Is that a waft of snobbery drifiting across from table three? I think that poster was merely rather clumsily making the fair point about not shovelling seasoning on until you have tasted first. Elementary perhaps, but ...

There are some very funny punter reviews on LE if you have a bit of time to kill by browsing around. Some of them intentionally so. Some are even good enough to put the frighteners on the pros, imho.

Re Michael Moore. He is on TV a fair bit, but possibly only Daytime TV.

It is actually a good restaurant, I've been there a few times. He's a genial man, too.

S

[chefmatt]

ok l'atelier is back, it wasn't there when i searched last night, strange. I added toms kitchen about two months ago. Restaurant four 0 nine in clapham north appeared after about a week opening and nobody can find the bloody place!

I think we all know to take the reviews with a pinch of salt, some of them are very funny. Of the Ivy "The waiter even remembered who had ordered what" you can tell the type of punters who go there for a special occasion meal, probably had crap food but saw sporty spice and was made up!!!

[bateman]

Hi there, haven't posted in a long time and had trouble remembering my password!

Just to answer some of the questions, (I founded London Eating btw for those who don't know), the mysterious disappearance was due to nothing more sinister than a coding error. We made some tweaks on our search yesterday which caused a few searches to come back with nothing. Thanks for noticing and it's all fixed now.

With regard to restaurants power over us since I started the site we have never taken a restaurant off the site as much as they shout. We will investigate any reviews that they feel are unfair and spend a huge amount of time writing new ways to identify fake reviews from both punters and restaurant owners (and they try it on quite a bit!)

We have also just released a new feature where you can click a registered users name and see all their previous reviews, this should enable you to make a better judgement on the advice given by the reviewer and feel that it is the best way to build in a sort of "trust" factor.

[sunbeam]

I think we all know to take the reviews with a pinch of salt, some of them are very funny.  Of the Ivy "The waiter even remembered who had ordered what" 

←

And yet I went to Galvin Windows and the waiter there asked which of us was having what when he brought out the starters. Very poor I thought. You can't always guarantee the basics, even at that level (about 20 floors I think)

S

[chefmatt]

Bateman,

can you shed any light on where i can find toms kitchen on your site?

[chefmatt]

ok just found it!!

[nikkib]

Hi there, haven't posted in a long time and had trouble remembering my password!

Just to answer some of the questions, (I founded London Eating btw for those who don't know), the mysterious disappearance was due to nothing more sinister than a coding error. We made some tweaks on our search yesterday which caused a few searches to come back with nothing. Thanks for noticing and it's all fixed now.

With regard to restaurants power over us since I started the site we have never taken a restaurant off the site as much as they shout. We will investigate any reviews that they feel are unfair and spend a huge amount of time writing new ways to identify fake reviews from both punters and restaurant owners (and they try it on quite a bit!)

We have also just released a new feature where you can click a registered users name and see all their previous reviews, this should enable you to make a better judgement on the advice given by the reviewer and feel that it is the best way to build in a sort of "trust" factor.

←

what qualifies as a fake review - i mean i can understand trying to stop restaurant owners weighting the reviews in their favour but surely the only fake "punter" reviews would be those with gripes against a particular restauarant and would verge on the libellous and would not be able tobe printed anyway?

[sunbeam]

what qualifies as a fake review - i mean i can understand trying to stop restaurant owners weighting the reviews in their favour but surely the only fake "punter" reviews would be those with gripes against a particular restauarant and would verge on the libellous and would not be able tobe printed anyway?

←

I would say one could write a review slating a restaurant without being libellous. After all some press critics do that every weekend. It must damage the restaurant involved but there is no recourse in law.

S

[Jon Tseng]

London Eating - in general I find this site pretty useful.

Coverage wider than eG or say Time Out guides and more up to date. Good for nooks, crannies and particularly local places.

I think the reviews are perfectly tolerable, so long as u understand their limitations.

Complements sites like eG, OA, MF and the like (which are more focused, particularly on the haute end) rather than competes.

My thruppenceworth.

J

[bateman]

That's what I meant really, they can try to write multiple reviews using multiple identities that aren't libellous to try and drive a restaurants score down and that is what we want to (and do) catch.

To add a couple of things to the above comments reader reviews will now appear much quicker than they have over the last few months, also it should be much more up to date with new openings going forward.

[nikkib]

That's what I meant really, they can try to write multiple reviews using multiple identities that aren't libellous to try and drive a restaurants score down and that is what we want to (and do) catch.

To add a couple of things to the above comments reader reviews will now appear much quicker than they have over the last few months, also it should be much more up to date with new openings going forward.

←

Sounds kie these people who spend so much time writing on internet sites have far too much time on their hands

[Zoticus]

That's what I meant really, they can try to write multiple reviews using multiple identities that aren't libellous to try and drive a restaurants score down and that is what we want to (and do) catch.

←

How about those that try to drive their ratings up, surely that's an equally pressing problem?

[sunbeam]

That's what I meant really, they can try to write multiple reviews using multiple identities that aren't libellous to try and drive a restaurants score down and that is what we want to (and do) catch.

←

How about those that try to drive their ratings up, surely that's an equally pressing problem?

←

I would imagine the safeguards bateman mentions work equally well in either case.

Gosh it seems there is a whole sordid underbelly (Mmmm, belly!) to the restau biz

S

[Infrasonic]

Gastrochick's point "The problem with London Eating is the reliability of the reviews, there should be some kind of site where you have to register to review and your reviews are graded by the community such that you build up a reputation or similar' is wrong I think.

The site is totally democratic and anyone can post without having to 'prove' themselves first which I find rather a disturbing notion. Who would be on this panel of self-elected gastro gods doing the approving? Ok, ok you lot, put your hands down   In any case many of the punter reviews are thoughtful and well-written, just as some are mad stupid rants.  It's up to the reader to sort the wheat from the chaff (or chavs).

I think her point is perfectly valid. The democracy isn't affected, you simply let registered users recommend a post as having worth, and that poster builds up a reputation built on the opinion of the users. It's how the rest of society works, isn't it? Meritocracy (well, ideally anyway )

If you want to see it action have a look at the discussion boards on The Motley Fool financial site.

http://boards.fool.co.uk/Index.aspx

I don't think Karl Marx will be turning in his grave over it...

I

[sunbeam]

Gastrochick's point "The problem with London Eating is the reliability of the reviews, there should be some kind of site where you have to register to review and your reviews are graded by the community such that you build up a reputation or similar' is wrong I think.

The site is totally democratic and anyone can post without having to 'prove' themselves first which I find rather a disturbing notion. Who would be on this panel of self-elected gastro gods doing the approving? Ok, ok you lot, put your hands down   In any case many of the punter reviews are thoughtful and well-written, just as some are mad stupid rants.  It's up to the reader to sort the wheat from the chaff (or chavs).

I think her point is perfectly valid. The democracy isn't affected, you simply let registered users recommend a post as having worth, and that poster builds up a reputation built on the opinion of the users. It's how the rest of society works, isn't it? Meritocracy (well, ideally anyway )

If you want to see it action have a look at the discussion boards on The Motley Fool financial site.

http://boards.fool.co.uk/Index.aspx

I don't think Karl Marx will be turning in his grave over it...

I

←

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

As Plato once said

S

[bateman]

I would imagine the safeguards bateman mentions work equally well in either case.

Absolutely

[Jon Tseng]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

As Plato once said

←

Don't be silly. That's Latin. Plato was Greek.