Tom Sietsema's Online Chat

[B.A.R.]

I can understand Michael's frustration at being consistently pilloried for the same things, when it appears to me, all he has strived to do is provide (a) excellent food at ( reasonable prices on a © first come first serve basis while (d) informing all his guests, up front, of his policies and procedures. Isn't this what most guests ask of in a restaurant? Exceptional Value. No overbooking. No waiting for tables. No $55 Beringer Merlot.

[Principia]

My pet peeve is with restaurant customers that count the minutes between courses and want to be rushed through a meal as if they were a train that needed to be pushed out of the station... People need to learn to relax or express that they are in a hurry.

Well, at least you know we won't be doing that to you on the 28th and the 1st!

Sad to say I've been to dinner once with a group where we were indeed in a hurry and had let the restaurant know. Obligingly, the kitchen was getting us our orders as quickly as possible. Then one of the people in the group - of course, the one who'd made it necessary for us to be in a hurry - kvetched to the rest of us because the food was coming "too fast." We muzzled her before she got to say anything to our waiter. If she'd actually gotten to pitch her little fit to the staff, I'd have considered their response justifiable homicide.

[JLK]

For the person who called to confirm an 11:30 lunch res at drinx "at least three times" only to arrive and find the place closed, consider it a blessing in disguise.

What an odd chat (IMO) thus far...chatter about ironing tablecloths and surprise that purses are being stolen from bars? Sorry, but duh!! If you must hang your purse on the back of your chair, at least cover it with a coat and keep a close eye on the thing. It's not just a DC thing.

By the way, here's the link.

Edited February 22, 2006 by JLK

[Jonathan]

www.purseporter.com

my wife has it and uses it and loves it. servers always comment on it.

tried sneaking it into the chat but got it in too late.

[qwertyy]

Did he really recommend Aria to the group of sweaty 10k-ers? Sure it's no 1789, but jeez. He must really not like that place!

[DonRocks]

Tupperware the Ides of March.

[JPW]

Washington, DC: Online food talks... i.e., egullet.org, donrockwell.com? How did these come about and are the people who post professional food writers who have studied cuisine? Why does it seem as though when someone posts their opinion, especially negative, it takes on the same status as a professional food critic's review?

I know that was a string of questions that could have many different responses. But I'm just blown away that these "chat boards" have become synonymous with a professional restaurant review. Do you have any thoughts on this subject that you would like to share with the class?

Thank you.

Tom Sietsema: The online food groups -- and there are dozens in the Washington area alone -- vary widely in terms of usefulness, membership, entertainment value and accuracy. Some participants know a lot about food, others are just eager eaters.

Restaurateurs tell me the myriad forums are something of a mixed blessing: a balance to the established print critics but a potential headache whenever rumors are aired (without any fact-checking by their posters) or one anonymous diner has a bad experience (and tells, potentially, the whole world).

Truer than ever these days: "Everyone is a critic."

So much material, so little time. FWIW -- my response to the poster who obviously lurks here.

Online communities have been a central part of the Internet since it began (ever belong to a Usenet group?). Let's begin here. These places exists to serve as a community for people who love food -- whether shopping for it, preparing it, or eating it. Here we are able to share our experiences with those with similar interests. On the whole, are we professionals? No. But then again what is Frank Bruni's food background? What qualification did he bring to his new reviewing job at the NY Times beyond having been the Times Rome bureau chief?

I don't see how a negative review here equals that of a "professional" critic. Maybe a couple of thousand people read the reviews here, almost a couple of million people read Tom's reviews. A good review of a new restaurant appears here and 20 people show up the next week. A good review of a new place from Tom packs the joint for weeks. That said, there are people here whose reviews I trust more than I trust Tom's. How did I come to this? Experience. After following Tom's reviews and the reviews of certain people here, I came to learn how our tastes aligned for certain types of restaurants. Someone new pops up with a strong position on something? I take it with whole shaker of fleur de sel.

What the food boards show is the populist nature of the Internet. Stuck in a city with a newspaper reviewer you can't trust? Not a problem anymore you can go by the collective wisdom of your fellow diners who may not be "professionals" or "know a lot about food", but who are enthusiastic enough about the necessary act of eating to take the time and effort to share their experiences with the world.

Anybody selling anything, whether food or razor blades has to deal with Internet forums. Tom's own employer, The Washington Post itself has diner "ratings" that are almost entirely anonymous on its web site. Epinions, Amazon, the list goes on and on. Restaurants are not alone.

Whoever's opinion you are listening to, the advice stays the same -- Caveat Emptor.

You want to know who we are? Join us. There's a lot of food and beverage out there to be enjoyed.

[bilrus]

I agree with JPW and just for emphasis:

collective wisdom

If one person here has one bad (or good meal) meal at a place and posts about it, I take it for what it is - one person's experience at one point in time. If five or ten people here have bad experiences, I'll probably cross that place off my list.

That's why it doesn't hurt for someone to post their thoughts on a place, even if it is based on one experience. In the end, those can all add up to something meaningful.

[Elias Hengst]

If one person here has one bad (or good meal) meal at a place and posts about it, I take it for what it is - one person's experience at one point in time.  If five or ten people here have bad experiences, I'll probably cross that place off my list.

Though many restaurateurs I know who follow DR closely are fearful of posting it, the truth is that there is often a "mob" psychology that occurs when a small subgroup's favorite restaurant is criticized, with the commenter subsquently attacked by a dozen anonymous figures calling him/her an idiot, or in some cases, an asshole.

Whether you agree or not with Tom S, Todd K, or Frank Bruni, the fact is that they are 100% accountable for their opinions. For the same reason, I don't write from behind a cartoon; it would be easy to snipe at other restaurants from behind a made-up name or picture. If you want to come punch me or flame me for my opinion, you know EXACTLY what I look like and where to find me.

But the internet gives editorial parity to the anonymous writer-avatar whose knowledge or culinary prejudices are never disclosed.

For example, someone posted a month or so ago on DR that my restaurant, Sonoma, had only 1 Sonoma County wine by the glass. Unless I correct it, it stands as written for thousands to read. For the record, the reviewer did not understand that Sonoma County wines, of which we have at least a dozen by-the-glass, is made up of areas like Russian River, etc. I watched and waited for a DR member to correct him, until I finally stepped in and did it myself.

I write about this mob even as I have benefitted from DR members "sticking up" for my place. The fact remains that on this board and others, if you say something negative about a restaurant - like the guy who criticized Rays recently - you are quite literally beat down by a gang of that restaurant's devotees. God forbid you actually suggest that Ray's use far-fetched technology like a "reservation book" or "open table" - the legions of Rays, and ML will flame you anonymously, and relentlessly.

Even my few words insisting on the courtesy and professionalism of most people in the service industry, in response to ML's 'asshole' commentary, was met with disdain and by people saying ML was somehow sticking up for his employees by being rude to guests. I was then cast as some on DR as the enemy of the service industry proletariat for suggesting we are here to serve others and not bitch about it publicly. That was before the 20+ posts were removed, btw.

I think anyone who reads this site frequently recognizes this anonymous gang mentality is surely one of the more negative aspects of the "populist nature of the internet."

The question then becomes, to whom are these faceless, nameless, address-less avatars responsible?

[bilrus]

I thought you were treated poorly in that exchange in the Ray's thread.

I also think that anyone who expresses their opinion, as long as it is backed up with facts and reasonably argued, should not be criticized for expressing it. Challenged on facts or opinions yes - part of what makes the best of these forums interesting is the ability to have a back and forth about restaurants and food, not merely be a pep squad for the restaurant industry or friends in the business or a source for finding the best burrito. But not criticized for merely having an opinion.

Who are we responsible to? The people who read these threads. Most of the people who post here and on eGullet or Chowhound post because they want to learn a little bit, be entertained and to share opinions and knowledge with others, not to see their words on the screen. Users can remain anonymous if they want, but we are generally quick to call someone on bullshit.

Just last night I was with 50 friends at Corduroy, some whom I have met scores of times and some who I didn't even have the chance to meet last night that I am responsible to. That is what a community is about.

Besides - my "cartoon" is a pretty good likeness, if I do say so myself.

Edited March 1, 2006 by bilrus

[jm chen]

The question then becomes, to whom are these faceless, nameless, address-less avatars responsible?

To me, the final question is quite different: is the culinary world better off with these types of forums, or without them?

There are those who would come down, with equal energy and righteousness, on both sides of that argument.

The system has its flaws. People who are uninformed or in a bad mood or out to get someone for one reason or another, they are all capable of saying nasty things about great places. And the anonymity does support that; or at least, it doesn't preclude it.

But I would rather have a place like this, where I can consult people whose opinions I have grown to trust -- even if I have never met them and I have no idea what their real names are or what they look like -- than rely solely on the opinons of professional restaurant critics, who no matter how much they love food, cannot reach out and experience the entire restaurant community in the depth and breadth that this wonderful horde of enthusiastic amateurs can do.

The original question to Tom S. posited that the internet makes it possible for an amateur reviewer's opinion to be viewed as equal to Tom's. I don't think that's the case. I wouldn't read a snippy, angry review on this site and compare it against a glowing review from Tom and consider them equally. But if Tom gave a local restaurant a bad review and 10 people here gave it a good one, I'd be pretty likely to give it a try myself, just to see.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

[DLB]

Sometimes I am amused by the amount of time some people on this board spend writing lengthily reviews of restaurants. You really have to take these reviews with a grain of salt, as everyone has different taste. Tom's job is to go out to eat and review restaurants. When I go out to eat it is for pleasure, as long as the food taste good and service is great I am fine. I am not sitting there analyzing the flavors, or making mental notes about every detail. Some of you guys take this whole eating out foodie thing, way too seriously. Relax

[RaisaB]

Well in response to that, I have changed my avatar. My name is my own. I think you will find the majority of people on here do reveal who they are if you stay long enough to get to know them.

I do agree that there is a tendancy on here do go with the crowd. What can you do? Does anyone have an answer? Personally I don't care if my opinion differs from that of the crowd,mob, whatever you want to call it. You will find that there are just as many on here that do appreciate your willingness to express your true opinion.

ETA This avatar will self-destruct in 24 hours

Edited March 1, 2006 by RaisaB

[Audrey2025]

The beauty of boards such as DR is that each user can take from them what he or she wants and can leave the rest. There can be "mob mentality," yes, but I would venture to say most users are just good people who like good food and appreciate the thoughts and opinions left by fellow diners. I rarely read the "long diatribe" posts about any one place, but prefer to skim around and get a general sense of a place before going there (or canceling reservations, in a few very rare cases).

A scant few people here claim to be experts or are unreasonable in the way they express their opinions. The vast majority of people here are quick with wit, advice, camaraderie, and culinary curiosity.

I like reading Tom, Ruth, Phyllis, etc., etc., but as someone who has worked for a VERY large newspaper before, I know that it ultimately comes down to two goals: sell newspapers and sell ads. What it comes down here...for me...is good people who like good food sharing thoughts.

[Sthitch]

Sometimes I am amused by the amount of time some people on this board spend writing lengthily reviews of restaurants. You really have to take these reviews with a grain of salt, as everyone has different taste. Tom's job is to go out to eat and review restaurants. When I go out to eat it  is for pleasure, as long as the food taste good and service is great I am fine. I am not sitting there analyzing the flavors, or making mental notes about every detail. Some of you guys take this whole eating out foodie thing, way too seriously. Relax

I am curious what would an appropriate non-serious review of a meal or a restaurant be? Something like “this place rocks, the waitstaff is soooo kool, and hip. The food I had last night was way better than what I had a ‘restaurant X’”? I find that kind of statement (which is the norm on some other sites) to be as useless, as the pervasive “this restaurant sucks!” comments. Neither is helpful, and provides no insight into why the opinion was formed. Yes, Sietsema gets paid to do what he does, but other people share the passion even if there is no paycheck at the other end of it.

[mdt]

Sometimes I am amused by the amount of time some people on this board spend writing lengthily reviews of restaurants. You really have to take these reviews with a grain of salt, as everyone has different taste. Tom's job is to go out to eat and review restaurants. When I go out to eat it  is for pleasure, as long as the food taste good and service is great I am fine. I am not sitting there analyzing the flavors, or making mental notes about every detail. Some of you guys take this whole eating out foodie thing, way too seriously. Relax

While some of us take eating out seriously and enjoy analyzing the flavors, we sure know how to relax and have a great time.

Do I expect everyone to post lengthy reviews of the quality of a top notch professional? Of course not, but I for one enjoy the detailed descriptions of the components of various meals. This helps me in deciding if I may want to try a place regarless of someone's view.

[dcfoodie]

I think discussion boards like this one are as important if not more important than the food critics. Many more restaurants get covered here, eG and Chowhound than Tom S, Todd K, or the other newspapers combined. The more voices out there, the better in my opinion. No one person's opinion is worth more than another's as long as that opinion isn't something to the effect of "This place sux and I'm never going back" with nothing to back it up.

And let's not concentrate on the negative impacts that peoples posts can have on a restaurant. What about the people that come and read about a place that they're already written off? What if they read other peoples positive comments -- how everyone should try this one dish, or how another had exceptional service, etc? That has a huge potential to change peoples minds and rethink their decisions about a restaurant.

Edited to fix my poor grammar.

Edited March 1, 2006 by dcfoodie

[crackers]

Some of you guys take this whole eating out foodie thing, way too seriously. Relax

The discussion of taking the "foodie thing" way too seriously has come up before.

[hillvalley]

When I go out to eat it  is for pleasure, as long as the food taste good and service is great I am fine. I am not sitting there analyzing the flavors, or making mental notes about every detail. Some of you guys take this whole eating out foodie thing, way too seriously. Relax

From September to January I walk into work Monday morning and hear conversations analyzing the Skins from mental notes that were taken during the game. That is their interest, passion, obsession, whatever.

Me, I come to work on Monday morning and do the same thing with others who have the same interest. I do so on the Internet because that is where I have found like minded people. And unlike my coworkers my season is 12 months long, 7 days a week.

As for the anonymity thing, we have had this conversation before and I find there is usually one point of view that men don't necessarily think of: safety. My name is not on the board because I don't want hundreds of random strangers to know who I am if I don't know who they are. I look forward to meeting as many people from the board as I can, but in a situation where I can divulge the information and know who recieves it. The Internet has made it very easy to find and track people and if keeping my annonymity means that someone doesn't trust my opinion about a restaurant, so be it. That being said, those who are regular readers of this board and eG before it know enough about my point of view to decide whether or not they agree with me.

There is a mob mentality around here at times. I admit, I have been part of it. It is one of the things that I would like to see less of around here, but it's human nature. I go back to football. There is one guy I work with who is a Cowboys fan. When he would try to talk trash about the Skins the mob mentality would attack him, just as they have here.

Boards like this are here to stay. We can only imagine what will come next.

[Meaghan]

Boards like this are here to stay.  We can only imagine what will come next.

Scented Criticism is next...

[CrescentFresh]

Scented Criticism is next...

If this ever comes about, no one will ever again post that their meal at Restaurant X was shitty!

[Meaghan]

If this ever comes about, no one will ever again post that their meal at Restaurant X was shitty!

I'll post the smell of Cherry Coke if I like a place (for some reason that smell reminds me of the euphoria of childhood-strong arming my mom into giving me soda).

Back on topic before I get deleted (or get the Budweiser/dumpster scent)

Edited March 1, 2006 by Meaghan

[Barbara]

From September to January I walk into work Monday morning and hear conversations analyzing the Skins from mental notes that were taken during the game.  That is their interest, passion, obsession, whatever.

Me, I come to work on Monday morning and do the same thing with others who have the same interest.  I do so on the Internet because that is where I have found like minded people.  And unlike my coworkers my season is 12 months long, 7 days a week. 

As for the annonymity thing, we have had this conversation before and I find there is usually one point of view that men don't necessarily think of: safety.  My name is not on the board because I don't want hundreds of random strangers to know who I am if I don't know who they are.  I look forward to meeting as many people from the board as I can, but in a situation where I can divulge the information and know who recieves it.  The Internet has made it very easy to find and track people and if keeping my annonymity means that someone doesn't trust my opinion about a restaurant, so be it.  That being said, those who are regular readers of this board and eG before it know enough about my point of view to decide whether or not they agree with me.

There is a mob mentality around here at times.  I admitt, I have been part of it.  It is one of the things that I would like to see less of around here, but it's human nature.  I go back to football.  There is one guy I work with who is a Cowboys fan.  When he would try to talk trash about the Skins the mob mentality would attack him, just as they have here. 

Boards like this are here to stay.  We can only imagine what will come next.

Hillvalley has made the point about anonymity before and it deserves repeating. On the other hand, sitting down to a meal with fellow Rockwellians who screen names are unprounceable is a little bit awkward. First names on a name tag isn't too much to ask. Oh, I've got to run and slap name tags on everybody at Corduroy!

I can't even try to assess the value (or lack thereof) of boards like this for the "industry," but I know what it is worth to me. Try being cooped up in a Grand Jury room for days on end and listen to NOTHING but discussions of the previous night's "American Idol." Particularly if you have never seen a single episode. Now THAT is torture.

For whatever reason, I am always surprised at how much I enjoy the company of Rockwellians at any event.

Gotta run . . .Dinner!

[Waitman]

To me, the final question is quite different: is the culinary world better off with these types of forums, or without them?

There are those who would come down, with equal energy and righteousness, on both sides of that argument.

The system has its flaws. People who are uninformed or in a bad mood or out to get someone for one reason or another, they are all capable of saying nasty things about great places. And the anonymity does support that; or at least, it doesn't preclude it.

I'd argue that there are no good arguments against forums like this (or like this). It's unimaginable that a good chef/restauranteur/bartender doesn't have a better chance of making a go of a good, different and unusual place with on-line forums out there than they would in a world dominated by one or two reviewers and marketing budgets.

I'm happy to see chefs/owners/managers take issue with or explain complaints posted on line; I think they are being utterly intellectually dishonest when they launch into their "hiding behind anonymity" rap, and will remain so until a chef gets on and posts "you can't trust that rave about my place, they guy/gal is completely unknown to you."

Elias' point is well taken to. It's hardly as if chefs don't have their defenders on line. There is often a circling of the wagons when favored restaurants are attacked. Balance the number of "I came twice just making my reservation" posts against the "I'd rather gouge my eyes out than eat there again" posts, and you'll get a good idea of on-line the reality.

Anyone who can't stand the heat....

Edited March 2, 2006 by Waitman

[giant shrimp]

Sometimes I am amused by the amount of time some people on this board spend writing lengthily reviews of restaurants.

it's totally mad, isn't it!

[bilrus]

"I came twice just making my reservation"

Now which restaurant was this? Let me get my pen.

[Mark Slater]

I'd argue that there are no good arguments against forums like this (or like this).  It's unimaginable that a good chef/restauranteur/bartender doesn't have a better chance of making a go of a good, different and unusual place with on-line forums out there than they would in a world dominated by one or two reviewers and marketing budgets. 

I'm happy to see chefs/owners/managers take issue with or explain complaints posted on line; I think they are being utterly intellectually dishonest when they launch into their "hiding behind anonymity" rap, and will remain so until a chef gets on and posts "you can't trust that rave about my place, they guy/gal is completely unknown to you." 

Elias' point is well taken to.  It's hardly as if chefs don't have their defenders on line.  There is often a circling of the wagons when favored restaurants are attacked.  Balance the number of "I came twice just making my reservation" posts against the "I'd rather gouge my eyes out than eat there again" posts, and you'll get a good idea of on-line the reality.

Anyone who can't stand the heat....

Charles,

Most chefs don't have the time or inclination to comment online about every petty complaint that pops up. I also know from experience that most of the time, people who post complaints usually leave out at least one critical detail that makes all the difference. Here's a real life example:

Customer: It took 45 minutes to get the check!

Maitre d': Who did you ask for the check?

Customer: You have to ask for the check here?

When this complaint gets sent to Tom, all he hears is it took 45 minutes to get the check. I will echo Tom's advice and say that speaking up at the time is the far better remedy to any situation. Trashing a place the next day online is nothing more than a revenge posting.

[Waitman]

Charles,

Most chefs don't have the time or inclination to comment online about every petty complaint that pops up. I also know from experience that most of the time, people who post complaints usually leave out at least one critical detail that makes all the difference. Here's a real life example:

Customer: It took 45 minutes to get the check!

Maitre d': Who did you ask for the check?

Customer: You have to ask for the check here?

When this complaint gets sent to Tom, all he hears is it took 45 minutes to get the check. I will echo Tom's advice and say that speaking up at the time is the far better remedy to any situation. Trashing a place the next day online is nothing more than a revenge posting.

I'll quibble with "most of the time", at least here and on eGullet, as forums like these draw a higher class of ranter. But I agree that there are regularly details missing, from malice and ignorance, and that chefs don't and shouldn't spend a great deal of time on line.

But I do think that, on the balance, these forums do far more good for than harm to deserving restaurants.

[DCJono]

But I do think that, on the balance, these forums do far more good for than harm to deserving restaurants.

Without this forum, there are literally dozens of restaurants I would have never tried. Some have become my most favorite eateries in the area.

Customer research often shows that those who have a great experience will tell one or two people about it. Those who have a bad experience will tell 10-15 people about it. It's just human nature. And it's why hospitality and other industries that work with the public need to do their best to fix problems when they arise.

On a very balanced, well-moderated site like this, people who have a good experience get the opportunity to tell the same hundreds or thousands of like-minded food lovers about their experiences. I think this works out very well for good restaurants in our area (particularly the new or out-of-the way places.)

[brr]

Its a doozy of a chat today!

[Audrey2025]

I got a hearty laugh from the server who suggested patrons add a dollar to the tip amount for every drink refill, because drink refills are "incredibly time consuming."

Line-editing proofs is an incredibly time consuming part of my job, and last time I checked, I didn't get an extra dollar for every page!

[deangold]

I dreamed that one day you will be seated at your table and there is a taxi meter. You will click on the timer and you get charged by the time you sit and not by what you eat! That way there will be no problem with a aprty of 2 taking a table for 4 hours!

[johnb]

I dreamed that one day you will be seated at your table and there is a taxi meter.  You will click on the timer and you get charged by the time you sit and not by what you eat!  That way there will be no problem with a aprty of 2 taking a table for 4 hours!

Charging (in part) on the basis of time is not a silly idea. Now comes the economist in me.

Any simple economist knows (along with most sensible people) that pricing should be related to costs as closely as possible. Then the consumer gets the correct information to make his decisions, and anomolies in the supply/consumption chain are minimized. In a restaurant, the key costs are raw food, beverages, salaried labor, service personnel (tip labor if you will) and the dining room (rent and decor). Proper pricing would mean that the customer is charged for what he actually uses in each category. Bear with me.

For example, I've always been flummoxed that restaurants use the same rule-of-thumb markup on raw food and beverages, when the actual cost to get them on the table differs so markedly (cooked food has a high labor component but beverages don't). That is an anomoly. For that reason I'm always reticent to order beverages, especially better wines, in a restaurant--fortunately, some restauranteurs such as yourself are finally figuring out that 300% wine markups are not good business.

As to the topic at hand, time spent sitting at the table, clearly that class of customers who linger cost the restaurant more than those who order the same thing but finish up and allow the table to be turned for more business. In effect, the lingerers are getting time for free--they have little incentive to leave if they don't feel like it. This anomoly cries out for a concommitantly higher charge against the lingerers. The solution is to charge everyone separately for time and food (the food charges clearly would be less than by rolling the whole thing into a single food charge), or at the very least start charging after a set time (do I hear 90 minutes?). Then the restaurant could make money no matter how long they linger, and those who eat in reasonable time would not be effectively paying for (cross-subsidizing an economist would say) the lingerers. The practical consequence, I think, would be that people would mostly get the h--- out, the tables would turn, and maybe tips collected would even go up. Of course, servers would need to get a move on as well.

Is this crazy? May seem so, and I doubt such pricing will be adopted on a wide scale any time soon. I don't doubt, however, that if something isn't done, 20 years from now there will be food boards where people are still complaining about table hogs. No pain, no gain.

[Waitman]

Charging (in part) on the basis of time is not a silly idea.  Now comes the economist in me. 

Is this crazy?  May seem so, and I doubt such pricing will be adopted on a wide scale any time  soon.  I don't doubt, however, that if something isn't done, 20 years from now there will be food boards where people are still complaining about table hogs.  No pain, no gain.

Let us not speak of table hogs. Let us speak of persons who enjoy a refined and leisurely dining experience and prefer not to be subject to the same time-and-motion calculations found in automotive assembly plants and Cheesecake Factories.

Besides, the economist in you should know that the prime determinant of cost is the relationship between supply and demand (although in a perfectly efficient commodities market, price will tend to approach cost). You think it costs $100 a bottle more to produce a Grand Cru Burgundy than a decent Cali Pinot?

[Audrey2025]

I hope Tom wakes me up the next time he decides to devote a chat to food! The "server v. customer" rant-offs are getting a bit old.

I hate when he posts something from a reader, then posts nothing but other readers' reactions to that post as they pour in. Can't we just assume that some readers will agree with the first reader, and some will disagree?

Posting reader diatribes and then simply tacking on "You hear that, owners?" or some other generic comment is lame, Tom! WHERE'S THE BEEF???

[JimRice]

What is it with Sietsema posting these screeds? I read and write to find out about food and dining, not to see some server scream at everyone, then a diner scream back at him. Those were both uncivil and a waste of the space he's got for his chat. This is one of the reasons I never read his chat live any more. He still has good information and tidbits, but the signal to noise ratio is out of whack.

JohnB, should we do a joint lecture on externalities?

Edit: Looks like I was posting about the same time Audrey2025 was, with the same sentiments.

[Josh Radigan]

Both sides get further and further apart from any solution because the speakers of both houses are ego-maniacs.

They make valid points here and there but for the most part its taking pot-shots at one time bad experiences and making those the general rules of their defense.

Although, point 9 from the customer standpoint makes no sense about food handling. Don't equate tattoos and piercings to those who don't bathe. That is a stero-type and one taken to offensively since most of the guys I know in the business who do have tattoos have military tattoos.

[Principia]

The practical consequence, I think, would be that people would mostly get the h--- out, the tables would turn, and maybe tips collected would even go up.

I think the current system many restaurants (such as The Melting Pot) employ of having seatings works just fine. You're not charged extra - you just have to get out.

I don't think a metered system a la taxicabs or speed chess would work. Potential abuse issues aside, as long as the table is continuing to order additional stuff, who cares if they're at a table longer?

The continuing to order stuff is key in my mind: I'd be perfectly happy to see places like Tryst start charging their "Oh, I think I'll milk a latte for four hours while I stretch out and surf the net having spread the rest of my crap out all over a four-top" clientele out the wazoo. Well, at least once the place has started to fill up. I can't imagine how much money places like that lose to leeching bozos who make it so people who actually want to spend money can't get a seat.

At least the average lingering-over-wine diner has paid to have a full meal first, y'know?

[Mark Slater]

I dreamed that one day you will be seated at your table and there is a taxi meter.  You will click on the timer and you get charged by the time you sit and not by what you eat!  That way there will be no problem with a aprty of 2 taking a table for 4 hours!

Years ago in the theatre district on (I think) W. 46th St in Manhattan there was a restaurant called The Hourglass. Every Table had an hourglass on it. When you sat down and ordered, the server turned the hourglass over. There was a fixed price per person for the time in the hourglass. Overtime incurred additional charges. Brilliant idea.

[DonRocks]

Years ago in the theatre district on (I think) W. 46th St in Manhattan there was a restaurant called The Hourglass. Every Table had an hourglass on it. When you sat down and ordered, the server turned the hourglass over. There was a fixed price per person for the time in the hourglass. Overtime incurred additional charges. Brilliant idea.

Nebergall went there once, thinking he could beat the system. Right when the hourglass was half-drained, he'd furtively flip it over, giggling "tee-hee, tee-hee."

[deangold]

as long as the table is continuing to order additional stuff, who cares if they're at a table longer?

The continuing to order stuff is key in my mind:

If only this is what happens. Every weekend there are parties that arrive before 6pm, finish their meals by 7:30 and are still on their tables an hour or more later. I have had parties hold business meetings (pulling out 3 inch thick notebooks and starting to go over documents) after ordering just one pasta each. I have had people drag out their computers and look at photos for half an hour or more. I have told people that I can only book their reservation if they are seated by a certain time and out by another only to have neither target met. Since it is pretty hard to throw people out of a restaurant mid meal, you just suck it up and hope they enjoy it enough to come back on a less social occasion!

While I don't think the time metering system will ever catch on, there is a non trivial portion of the dining public that feels the table is theirs for however long they wish. No matter how you look at that, it hurts the restaurant, which is, after all, a business.

[JPW]

I have told people that I can only book their reservation if they are seated by a certain time and out by another only to have neither target met.  Since it is pretty hard to throw people out of a restaurant mid meal, you just suck it up and hope they enjoy it enough to come back on a less social occasion!

Maybe you should ask Landrum for advice on that one.

[qwertyy]

When the table isn't needed, is lingering or turning to business after eating also frowned upon by you proprieters and servers?

[Waitman]

If only this is what happens.  Every weekend there are parties that arrive before 6pm, finish their meals by 7:30 and are still on their tables an hour or more later.  I have had parties hold business meetings (pulling out 3 inch thick notebooks and starting to go over documents) after ordering just one pasta each.  I have had people drag out their computers and look at photos for half an hour or more.  I have told people that I can only book their reservation if they are seated by a certain time and out by another only to have neither target met.  Since it is pretty hard to throw people out of a restaurant mid meal, you just suck it up and hope they enjoy it enough to come back on a less social occasion!

While I don't think the time metering system will ever catch on, there is a non trivial portion of the dining public that feels the table is theirs for however long they wish.  No matter how  you look at that, it hurts the restaurant, which is, after all, a business.

Not to defend the total assholes out there, but isn't one of the characteristics of "family style restaurants featuring simply prepared dishes from local ingredients along with reasonably priced and really good wines," a certain relaxed and lingering quality to the meal? I haven't travelled in Italy, but in France and Greece, there's definitely "leaving so soon? What's wrong" feeling to a lot of restaurants. In Greece, it's not uncommon for restaurants to send out a round of gratis digestifs just as you're winding down, as if to say "y'all come back."

[qwertyy]

In Greece, it's not uncommon for restaurants to send out a round of gratis digestifs just as you're winding down, as if to say "y'all come back."

After a particularly long and somewhat expensive lunch in Madrid, we were one of only two tables left in the place. The owner sent us out a bottle of house-made limoncello and a plate of ice cream treats. When we thanked him, he said he was delighted to do that for folks who enjoyed his restaurant so much that they would linger.

[mdt]

Not to defend the total assholes out there, but isn't one of the characteristics of "family style restaurants featuring simply prepared dishes from local ingredients along with reasonably priced and really good wines," a certain relaxed and lingering quality to the meal?  I haven't travelled in Italy, but in France and Greece, there's definitely "leaving so soon? What's wrong" feeling to a lot of restaurants.  In Greece, it's not uncommon for restaurants to send out a round of gratis digestifs just as you're winding down, as if to say "y'all come back."

Thanks for stating what I was thinking. And in Italy it is exactly the same way. The table is yours for the night.

[Nadya]

I can certainly see where both sides of the "pay up and leave" and "entitled to linger" debate come from. I am also sure that restaurants of different caliber and style approach that differently. But here's a few things folks may like to keep in mind:

- Let's say a typical restaurant serves dinner 5.30 to 10.30. That's five hours. Discounting a sodding lovebird couple that keeps playing footsie under the table and sucks fillings out of each other's teeth cavities in full view of the dining room long after the check has been paid, most people don't take five hours to eat dinner. That means that the restaurant makes certain assumptions about the time when you will get out (x hours after you begin), and makes reservations on the basis of these assumptions. That means that when you sit down to dinner at 5.30 and don't get up till 8.30, the other couple has been waiting for an hour. Assuming, of course, we are fully booked. If the table is all yours for the night...how is a restaurant supposed to keep going on half the revenue??

- Don't get me started on people who "just want some coffee and do some work, oh, if you have a booth, I'll take it." No. No. No.

- On coming for dinner five minutes before closing. Please, before you go into full-on "rules are rules and if you're open, you're open" rant, pause and consider human nature. How do YOU feel when a boss hands you a memo to write at 4.45 pm on Friday? Are you giddy with delight? Or do you curse under your happy-hour-eager breath? The cook and the waiter taking your order at that point can't wait to leave. There are girlfriends. Beverages. General fun after hours. Can you really expect them to be happy? It's just like what Bourdain said about brunch: "No one wants to be there." And if you've been sitting in the empty dining room for an hour all by yourself, and suddenly the lights come on - that's called "a message."

[Waitman]

I can certainly see where both sides of the "pay up and leave" and "entitled to linger" debate come from. I am also sure that restaurants of different caliber and style approach that differently.  But here's a few things folks may like to keep in mind:

- Let's say a typical restaurant serves dinner 5.30 to 10.30. That's five hours. Discounting a sodding lovebird couple that keeps playing footsie under the table and sucks fillings out of each other's teeth cavities in full view of the dining room long after the check has been paid, most people don't take five hours to eat dinner. That means that the restaurant makes certain assumptions about the time when you will get out (x hours after you begin), and makes reservations on the basis of these assumptions. That means that when you sit down to dinner at 5.30 and don't get up till 8.30, the other couple has been waiting for an hour. Assuming, of course, we are fully booked. If the table is all yours for the night...how is a restaurant supposed to keep going on half the revenue??

- Don't get me started on people who "just want some coffee and do some work, oh, if you have a booth, I'll take it." No. No. No.

- On coming for dinner five minutes before closing. Please, before you go into full-on "rules are rules and if you're open, you're open" rant, pause and consider human nature. How do YOU feel when a boss hands you a memo to write at 4.45 pm on Friday? Are you giddy with delight? Or do you curse under your happy-hour-eager breath?  The cook and the waiter taking your order at that point can't wait to leave. There are girlfriends. Beverages. General fun after hours.  Can you really expect them to be happy? It's just like what Bourdain said about brunch: "No one wants to be there." And if you've been sitting in the empty dining room for an hour all by yourself, and suddenly the lights come on - that's called "a message."

I've had a couple of timed dinners and I find two hours to be cutting it a bit close for a "nice" meal. If I was on of my few big nights out with Mrs. B and the waiter started buzzing around the table after exactly 120 minutes I think I would be annoyed as hell. Depends on the place, though.

I'm happy not to come in late. On the flip side, though, whoever answers the phine when I call at 10 o'clock should be honest enough to tell me "the kitchen is supposed to be open until 11, but you'll be the only table in the place." Dining late can be grim on both sides of the equation.

[hungry prof]

Aside from the implications for the restaurant, I would add how rude lingering can be for fellow patrons. To wit [begin rant]:

Like many on this board, my wife and I frequent 2 Amy's, which seems to be packed with people at all hours (ok, I've never been there at 3:00 on a Wednesday). I am constantly amazed at the temerity of people who linger at their tables while the teeming masses huddle in the corners or at the bar awaiting a table. Invariably, the longest lingerers are the largest parties--the two families of four eating together who haven't seen each other in ages. Have your (wonderful) pizza, enjoy your ice cream, and then please give up your table to somebody else. Frankly, I don't see the appeal of lingering at a place like 2 Amy's. The food's great, but it's a loud and crowded dining room. In this case at least, it's not about the profit margin of the restaurant. I think it's about being considerate of your fellow diners.

[End rant]