jayandstacey

This is pretty simple for me- Definitions: - Integrity is the combination of the truthfulness and honesty of motivations. - Doubt is just that - not 100% believed, but not automatically wrong. Comps may be the culture, but with them comes (for me) some doubt about the integrity of the review, maybe the reviewer and maybe the restaurant. I believe that restaurants are businesses and there's ALWAYS a quid pro quo - that if they give something for free, it is either as a repayment for a perceived favor (being a regular customer) or as prepayment for a future favor. I can't know the motivations, but when such a thing happens, there is (for me) some doubt to cast over the integrity of any reviews associated with those freebies/discounts. And yes, I'm consistent about this. Movie reviewers got a comp for NO reason other than the review- I respect friend's opinions who paid to see the movie WAY more than the reviewer, regardless of what movie history PhD they may have. The reviewer may be 100% honest - and remember, I'm only doubting, not calling foul. But it isn't as clean as I'd hope and I'd rather throw out an honest review that was subsidized than risk relying on a review without integrity. Consider the great lengths Consumer Reports takes to remain independent. While they may not be prefect, that's my standard. Don, if you want my 2 cents - DR.com events with folks from this board attending should be booked as bowling banquets paying full price with no connection to DR.com mentioned. If the restaurant happens to recognize anyone once they arrive, so be it, but full price is still paid. Even getting 10% off the check introduces that doubt of any future review. It would, IMHO, be really refreshing and probably unique to actually demand independence from that culture from those here. I also realize it is probably impossible.

The "pure" case is a reviewer goes in uninvited, eats, pays the stated prices, then writes the review. Any alteration to that formula, to me, casts a shadow of doubt on the review at least. Maybe the reviewer and the restaurant too depending on the alterations. I think it is that simple. And I think most people believe that's the way it normally happens (I do.) When marketing tries to take advantage of that perception to any degree and I find out about it - I'm pretty sure I don't want to dine at a place that's trying to fool me in this or any other way.

Kind of a weird turn...OK, clearly I'm missing some understanding here - this is not my universe and I'm out of my element. Certainly not the first time

OK, fair enough. I saw the example of being "sponsored" but I guess that's the point - if you get it for free, you are "sponsored" and become a part of the organization's advertising, marketing and sales. So I go back to my original position and add a little weight to it... Should a DR gathering EVER include any discount at all? If it does, and there are 30 people there - is Don able to police his site for everyone complying with the law? Isn't he at legal risk if someone posts a DR review about a dinner where a discount was involved...and that discount is not disclosed? And isn't this ALONE a reason to never allow such discounts?

I've read this and disagree. On your link, under Part II - applicability: "Accordingly, the Commission's role in protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices encompasses advertising, marketing, and sales online, as well as the same activities in print, television, telephone, and radio." A blogger/reviewer/yelper is not advertising, marketing or selling. One could say that's part of the issue here. But certainly when I comment on a recent restaurant experience, I'm not subject to FTC regulations regarding online advertising and marketing.

How do FTC advertising regulations relate?

It would also have to be disclosed at the front end to the owner - getting additional discount without disclosing that the reviews would all include mention of the discount - would be wrong to the owner, who may be hoping for (even expecting) a review that seemed like it came from an anonymous visit. Who tracks all these disclosures and promises and such? Isn't it easier to just play it clean to begin with - to be anonymous and pay full price - then review what the restaurant delivered under those circumstances; the ones most likely to be encountered by a reader?

I don't see a difference. Maybe someone can point it out for me. Once a favor is gotten from a restaurant, no matter how small, in exchange for a person letting on that they are a critic/blogger/yelper... then the review (and reviewer) is necessarily different and IMHO gets lumped in with the things I've been criticizing. I understand the DR group assembles socially and may comment on the food as a result (that is, after all, the common bond). But why not book as the "Alexandria Fall/Tuesday bowling league" or something like that? If you negotiate a special price, have it be solely based on the size of the group and their negotiating power. Nothing else. Maybe better to just pay whatever prices are offered - they are already set at the profit level the owner wants to make. I understand it may be difficult to fly under the radar. I understand restaurant owners may want to play this game. I would not, ever, even if my reviews mattered.

ok- makes sense. Same with clubs. A self-feeding beast when they link up

Admittedly, I used the phrase "freebie seeking blogger kind" above. However know that my beef is with the apparent PR people that connect such folk with unwitting restaurant owners. Both the owners and bloggers are being used to the PR person's advantage. This reminds me of PR people in the club scene. The "clubbers" aren't the issue, rather the PR people who go to great lengths to fill a place for a short time without the long-term survival of the place in mind. If anything, the clubbers are being misled as their goal is to find their ideal place and yet they're being led all around town to places that are often missing the boat (as evidenced by their turning to a PR person). I didn't think this was happening in the restaurant biz...but I guess I'm not surprised. I'm sure there are good PR folks out there doing long-term good things for restaurants. And as a former business owner I understand the need to move and make waves and all that. And of course bloggers aren't themselves the issue here most of the time.

well it is two thousand and fourteen after all.

As I vaguely recall, NJ once heavily taxed the sale of dump trucks in the state with the hopes of raising revenue. Within a year, dump truck sellers in PA and NY had operations near the border, doing brisk business. What had been a stream of $X taxes for NJ, which they hoped would become 3 $X - instead became nearly zero $x and maybe 3 such trucks were sold in the whole state the next year. As they said in Jurassic Park, "life finds a way" - and in this case Tesla cars will be driven by NJ residents, just through some other means than through a sale made in NJ. I'm not sure what "old guard" is keeping you down Don - Yelp and their ilk I suppose - but to the degree you keep plugging away you'll eventually outlast them as they fold under their own weight and greed. That, or you buy a flashy tie and speed up your speech. Then go into a restuarant and promise to fill it with reviewers who "owe you one" and will likely write a positive review. Charge $1000 and let us all know about the free buffet via a semi-cryptic tweet, and how much you love it, and imply how it's the next big thing on the restaurant scene and we better get in early so we can claim how much we loved it before others loved it. But first things first. You need a flashy tie. (this is the second time I've referred to Jurassic Park on this site in the last week. I don't even really like that movie. Shame on me)

Understood. But even in the smallest groups, there's often some sort of recognition delivery, formal or informal. Maybe they agree to collaborate on publishing. Maybe they get a phone call of congratulations. Maybe it is one mentioning another in a presentation. Maybe it is the publication of a new study that validates your own prior efforts. Maybe there are more formal achivements to be had from the bigger Acheologists' gang, or maybe they have a semi-joke thing, like whoever owns the 'decorated brick' for the year is "it" - and must choose who to send it to at the end of the next year. (and if the brick shows up on Jan 1, you know you've 'made it' in that circle.) Maybe it is a simple invitation to a dinner party, or maybe there's an 'elder' who's public opinions and private kudos amount to the highest accolades in the field. Maybe Dr. Perry is that elder. (?) I just can't imagine working in a field and never getting positive feedback. A person would have to be pretty zen-like to last long. Yet I also don't know what would make Dr. Perry feel especially proud of herself outside of an accomplishment for its own sake. Something must, right?

Yes, I second that emotion. Dr. Perry, speaking of applause, what are considered to be the highest accolades in your field? And do they motivate you, or are they more like frosting on a cake you made under other motivations? Are there more private accolades like this that give you a sense of pride? Of these, which have you achieved? Which are still to be had? Or, is it really just all about the money and fame, as most of us suspect it is? And lastly, if this hasn't been asked yet, how would you want your professional work to be remembered in 100 years?

I think you meant to ask this of JonB as he mentioned the 2%. That's DARN good, and yes, exceeds any points program I know of. I'd think the Discover card isn't universally accepted though - no? I need to look at these programs again. The Fidelity Visa card looks pretty good - 1.5% cash back on the first $15,000 per year, then 2% after that - which goes to a Fidelity account. I'd wonder how "trapped" the money is there - if I can't move it out quickly to another investment or my wallet. Back to the SPG program, if I spend $10,000, I get 10,000 points. As an example, that could be used to book the Silver Spring Sheraton where for the night I looked at, the lowest price through Sheraton would be $248 a night. For that hotel that night, that's a 2.48% return on my money. Now - there's PriceLine and other sources that could lower the compare-to price...but it still isn't a bad deal.

The sleeze here is the PR person that leaked this. They were out passing around this info and seems they weren't making enough $$$ on it. So they do what PR people do - they create "buzz". So now (presumably) a few restaurant owners will seek him out and pay for updated info. The suckers here are the restaurant owners who get fooled by this crap. They pay PR people to drum up business, who in turn deliver people looking for freebies. The owner pays the PR person, then gives away food to people who won't be back - because there's free food next week across town. Why can't DR be a part of this? Simple: DR can't/won't create a sudden "rush" of people - either of the freebie-seeking blogger kind that the PR people produce, or of the "gotta be able to talk about the latest hot restaurant" group that the Post and Washingtonian produce from their expansive distribution. Some owners seem to seek these crowds like a junkie after crack. These owners and PR people are mutually dependent and slap each other on the back when there's a 2 hour wait on a Friday night. I'm no expert, but from where I sit, the successful restaurant owners are those who ignore all that and just run their business like a business. One that charges money and delivers quality, in the hopes of repeat customers who are regularly satisified. If they do that, then the Post and Washingtonians will come and go without great impact to the business, good or bad. And the PR people and their beggars need never show up. Now - delivering on that promise is a HARD thing...but that's what matters most. The net: If I were an owner, I'd hope that all my competitors focused on this list and its source; and the blogger buffets and all that go with them. I'd focus on beating them.

For a few years I was using my debit card as my primary - until about the 3rd time the account was hacked and wiped out. I was reimbursed all the money, but the hassle of the ripple effect on my checking account steered my away. Now I use my SPG AmEx card (see above) with a backup Visa that has a low limit as the backup for small stuff. I have the debit card for cash access, and in case I need to do something really drastic that only takes Visa and exceeds the limit of the Visa credit card.

Well shoot - I didn't even know the Platinum card existed...I mean, I guess I sort of did but never bothered to look at it as a real option. I also use my (regular) AmEx under the SPG points system. I find those SPG points to be the best overall value for me. I find that flying and using points is hit-or-miss with blackout dates and such, locations served by different airlines, etc. And I don't travel often enough to supplement the points with actual miles flown. (having said that, SPG points can be used for flights - you just don't get as much "bang" per point when burning them that way. Better to pay for the flight and use the points for the hotel.) OTOH, with SPG I'm using the points with almost every overnight trip, flying or not. I've used it for some dumpy hotels in places like KY (where we were there for the horses, not the resort experience), in Barcelona to stay in that giant glass hotel that looks like a sail over the water, and to stay many nights on property in Disney World. (the Swan and Dolphin are SPG hotels). I can't remember the last time I paid for a hotel. We accumulate a lot of points. So I wonder how the ratios work out - if I'd be better with a Platinum card and transferring those points in... I doubt they are a precise 3 to 1 ratio...and given the volume of points we accrue, even a slight abritrage advantage might be worth the plantinum card price. BTW, my favorite game is to shop at Giant food and pay with my SPG card. I then use my gas rewards to accumulate savings on my gas, which I then also pay with my SPG card. Then I head down the road to buy my veggies at Lotte

I can't help but smile when I see this thread pop up - one of my all-time DR favorites. It reminds me I need to visit again- it's been a while. It also reminds me that Dino's disappointingly never offered any Dinosaur on the menu - despite these guys doing so and the fact that science would allow it. Black Hog BBQ has a third location now I believe. Panda Express has now has "over 1600 stores in 51 States and abroad" There's no limit!

Well that will teach you. Sorry, my question was a bit unfair. I was thinking of programs like NASA, that receive huge influxes of money for decades, then wane (relative to their peak) as their popularity with the voting population gets a little bored. I wonder to what degree the concerns you've voiced about funding and people leaving...are, at the macro level, driven by essentially a popularity contest and can raise and lower with the sentiments of those controlling such choices. Part of me thinks - "well, NASA is a whole giant field, with sweeping goals and thousands of scientists"...then I think that's simply the popularity contest at work again. At your root, you are both poking around for answers, knowledge and even new questions. It just seems more popular to do so out in space vs. on 1000 year old plates and grains. Maybe. Which circles back to your comment about finding a good fundraiser. Such a person is ultimately a salesperson and they have to have a product to sell. Which is kind of gist of my original question - how is the Archeobotanist's "brand" in your opinion? As for celebrities as pitch-folk and some of the other comments above: One example stands out to me as a resounding success. Not only did the (soon to be) celebrity make the case for funding, but literally change the landscape of their funding for many, many years based on this one presentation. If you haven't seen it, it is worth a watch:

What are thoughts on the public nature of scientists like Jane Goodall, Steven J Gould and Carl Sagan? (or Hawking, Feynman, Watson, etc) - are they doing overall more good or harm to their fields and to science overall? Is time spent on popularization spent well? (Edit: I ask as my greatest inspirations besides my parents were probably Carl Sagan and Bruce Springsteen. But I wonder - what if Carl Sagan spent more time with his eye to the telescope lens vs. the camera lens? Then I think maybe he inspired lots of people into astronomy, such that their eventual collective additions to the field far outweigh the additional contributions he would have made himself with more time to his studies. You mentioned your field is small and (seemingly) shrinking. Does your field lack a figurehead or the publicity that might garner attention and thus more funding? Or is that unfairly simple? )

Here's a practical (even fun) application of the idea. Most folks stick to their guns, unable to see another theory - while (I believe) most scientists would jump right to the notion of finding "no's" to be as valuable as staying in the box. On some level, science thrives on the doubter, the one not willing to jump aboard the train. Sure, they may seem mercenary or stuck in their ways - but maybe the overarching concept is to keep throwing ideas out there and seeing what sticks...knowing that a negative result is as informative as a positive: BTW, I *think* Don's discomfort is with the "stick in the mud" scientist who stands by a theory that's been clearly undermined by new evidence or a better theory. To that point, I agree that's what they are doing, yet I also think it is an OK part of the process, as they will cast shadows on the validity of the new data/theory. And the bigger the change (this can be defined by money, tenure, etc), the bigger the shadows that are cast. The beauty is that if the new data/theory is sound - it will survive in the shadows even if they never go away. In fact, the process of addressing the shadow only lends credence to the data/theory, assuming it survives.

Agreed, 100%. It is one of the more intersting things science reveals about itself. It does make one bristle. I kind of lump it in with watching a baby deer get caught and eaten by a cheetah - it is not the kind of thing I want to see, but in the bigger picture, circle of life and balance and all that. In the ugliness of a vicious kill, nature achieves harmony. I also agree that there are some absolutes in science. There must be, as the things of science existed before us and will exist after us. Science is merely our attempt to understand our surroundings. Yet I also think that "truth" rarely exists in a vacuum, except maybe in some parts of math. Scientific Truth is a swirl of beliefs and assumptions... and is really more a measure of usefulness to us, today, in our world. To your example - you know the sun will rise tomorrow. The experience is pretty truthful. But how can you explain *why* this is...without appeal to some tangental facts like the evidence the earth rotates? The sun has risen every day we've known and it is a very safe bet it will rise tomorrow - that part isn't very interesting. Science is about the "why" and the why in this particular case has changed significantly in just the last few 100 years. The processes that established, then destroyed, then rebuilt that specific truth are fascinating and (for folks like Galileo) life-altering. So maybe we can be thankful there are people willing to risk their reputations, even their lives, for or against a theory, right or wrong. Each wrong step helps secure the balance of the system and the rigors that ensure no question is left unasked. Yes, money, cultures, tenures and such are on the line at times - all the more reason why a scientist will be hestitant to jump aboard the train until their last possible moment. (BTW, I've never been a scientist but I majored in the philosophy of science. I could talk all night about this stuff, until the sun comes up [and it will]. At that point we'll be no further along but very entertained - and that's what philosophy does )

Thanks, this is what I had in mind. Is there a "right" time to board the train? Will the train ever leave the tracks? We can never really (really) know. One of the compelling things I find about science is that it is more a statistical/odds game than a world of absolute truths. Newton's view of physics was right for 100s of years - until it was wrong. In some ways it becomes a popularity contest - where truth is what's accepted by the greatest majority. And this is neither good nor bad. We might point to some instances where a person or an idea were wrong...but the process seems to have held up despite this apparent flaw. Thanks again Dr. Perry. I only get to pretend to be a scientist, thanks for humoring me

Ha! There's hot competition for GS Cookie selling spots around here. One year my daughter's group was assigned the front of a grocery store that had closed an hour before. We sat for two hours staring at an empty parking lot - it was kind of funny.