Criticizing the Critics

[jparrott]

Don't forget the tahini mud mask!

[chef4cook]

I once had a massage using warm olive oil and I was in heaven!!!

[Dave Pressley]

I would suggest waiting for a few weeks before going to the new location. My two kids and I had a very unfortunate experience there tonight. I will give props to the owners who comped us for our entire meal (what actually came out in bits and pieces cold and hot). But waiting an hour and 15 minutes for a sub and two not so great pizzas was a bit disappointing. I would also add that the fries and onion rings were stone cold when they hit the table. As was my first sub.

They were very stressed about making sure they refired everything, but there were a lot of excuses about it raining a lot, the fact their kitchen is understaffed, and they didn't expect so many people to show up. Still, if I come in, I expect a basic level of service. That didn't happen from the kitchen nor did it happen from the front of house who didn't even deliver napkins or cutlery to the table.

Quite a disappointment from what should be a good go to in my neighborhood.

If they can work it out, I think they may have something good. I just know it will take awhile before I go back.

So they comped your entire meal in apologetic form, but you still felt the need to post an online rant about the place? Well done.

Just one of the myriad reasons why I'm hesitant to comp. A staggering amount of people that you want to apologize to are still not appreciative.

[porcupine]

So they comped your entire meal in apologetic form, but you still felt the need to post an online rant about the place? Well done.

Just one of the myriad reasons why I'm hesitant to comp. A staggering amount of people that you want to apologize to are still not appreciative.

A cynic might wonder if comps don't amount to bribes sometimes. "Maybe if we comp them, they won't go posting about us on the internet". Even without cynicism, comps are of dubious value. A lot of places seem so quick and generous with the comps that they don't really mean anything. All of TS' glowing reports about the generosity of the GAR don't make me any more inclined to dine there, for instance; seems like service problems are part of their business model.

At any rate, so long as a diner is respectful when posting negative comments, it's really a public service. I appreciate a well-written, honest assessment. At the same time I know not to believe everything I read on the internet.

[Biotech]

So they comped your entire meal in apologetic form, but you still felt the need to post an online rant about the place? Well done.

Just one of the myriad reasons why I'm hesitant to comp. A staggering amount of people that you want to apologize to are still not appreciative.

Wow. I don't think it was a "rant" and I did not expect to be comped. I was planning on chalking it up to a live and learn, don't go the first week kind of experience. I was simply stating what was not a great experience.

I guess this is why I find myself posting less and less these days. Too many people "in the business."

[goodeats]

I guess this is why I find myself posting less and less these days. Too many people "in the business."

I don't think this should discourage you to post. It's good to find out what others think, especially in the business, for another viewpoint. Even if you felt attacked, it's the nature of posts -- email and words don't always come across as sincere or may come out opposite of what they were trying to convey. Maybe the PP had a bad day too - you never know.

As for LD, well, I certainly think they'll continue to do well as a neighborhood joint, considering they now have (almost) the entire strip there.

It was definitely good to know from you to avoid LD for a bit until they have sorted out their stuff, just as it's good to know from shaggy that he gets burned by customers sometimes and that's why dislikes certain practices.

[DonRocks]

I guess this is why I find myself posting less and less these days. Too many people "in the business."

[Our membership has always been about 25-30% "in the business," but interestingly (and not surprisingly), the massive influx of new members this month - mostly from the Post article - was only about 15% industry insiders.]

[Sthitch]

So they comped your entire meal in apologetic form, but you still felt the need to post an online rant about the place? Well done.

Just one of the myriad reasons why I'm hesitant to comp. A staggering amount of people that you want to apologize to are still not appreciative.

So a comp comes with a gag order attached? With that sort of speech stiffling attitude I guess you should just add me to that list of people banned from Eventide.

[DonRocks]

[Let's not forget that any post (or PM, or email, or text message, or phone call, or desperate front-door pounding) that transpires at 1:38 AM must be taken in context of the moment. Many a love letter, written in the 1860s and sent via Pony Express, would have been a text message saying "wanna hump u" had the courtship transpired in the days of Ambien and digital technology. ]

[hungry prof]

Via Eater, this doozie of a kerfuffle over a blogger's review of the NY restaurant, JoeDoe. The review strikes me as a pretty standard takedown, but the chef/owner fights back (aggressively) in the comments section. I don't know what to think of this--some emails/comments/blogposts are probably better typed for catharsis but never published, but then again, this is this guy's livelihood. . .

[monavano]

Via Eater, this doozie of a kerfuffle over a blogger's review of the NY restaurant, JoeDoe. The review strikes me as a pretty standard takedown, but the chef/owner fights back (aggressively) in the comments section. I don't know what to think of this--some emails/comments/blogposts are probably better typed for catharsis but never published, but then again, this is this guy's livelihood. . .

The moment the chef started with the ad hominem attacks he lost all credibility and revealed himself to be childlish and mean-spirited (which is the opposite of the intent of the review). Introspection and restraint go a long way. Painting all bloggers as shitty was pretty damn shitty too.

[jrichstar]

We've seen many times, including on this board, the "this is my livelihood" excuse by chef/owners to try to water down blog reviews. It all gets to credibility, of which Don's has a ton of and it seems, in reading through the comments on the Marc Sheppard blog, he has as well.

In addition, the way JoeDoe responded was extremely crass and unprofessional. The only "little man" in this story is the chef himself.

[Michael Landrum]

Food for thought: How soon is too soon to criticize a website?

Here is a question that is often asked about restaurants and is typically answered with a mix of patience, intolerance, forbearance, outrage and understanding.

I have always maintained that it is unprofessional and irresponsibly agenda-driven for a professional food critic to review a restaurant before it has been in operation for at least six months. However, a diner should judge his experience solely on his own criteria--but he should avoid new restaurants if he is adverse to or intolerant of service glitches or imprecise cooking or presentation. It is up to the restaurant to gauge satisfaction on an individual basis and to be more generous in finding ways to compensate for imperfect performance.

From my point of few, the question is always begged: How much did you suck at your first six months in your job/profession? How lame were you as a freshman in high school, and then again in college? How inept or terrified were you as a parent those first few weeks/months? How much did your first recital/speech/presentation/performance blow? How clean were your underpants afterward?

Now a restaurant provides a service and collects money for it, so the standards should be pretty high from day one. Of course, in the restaurant business we witness a good deal of neediness from guests, even on day one, since we are providing a service.

How disheartening, then, sad really, has it been to me to witness the cavilling and neediness and impatience surrounding the minor inconveniences caused by the switch to a new site format.

If Don is so miserably failing in his efforts to provide what is, after all, a free service whose only expense comes at his expense, as well as the efforts of the various volunteers, and if so little regard is afforded to, or assistance offered in, his labors, what chance do any of us have at pleasing any public?

[Heather]

Michael, I didn't see any of this as criticizing Don. This isn't his idea, Invision is who decided to make a butt-ugly Blogger/Invision/Facebook mashup what they support going forward. This site has essentially looked and functioned the same way for four years, and these changes are not all user-friendly. For intance: I am reasonably savvy and yet couldn't figure out how to quote you in my follow-up.

[DanielK]

For intance: I am reasonably savvy and yet couldn't figure out how to quote you in my follow-up.

Ignore the large, blue "Add Reply" button an inch below the topic (that's reply without quoting), and click the small "reply" button (if you look closely, there's a picture of a quote box on the button) just below the message on the right.

[DanCole42]

From my point of few, the question is always begged: How much did you suck at your first six months in your job/profession? How lame were you as a freshman in high school, and then again in college? How inept or terrified were you as a parent those first few weeks/months? How much did your first recital/speech/presentation/performance blow? How clean were your underpants afterward?

Speak for yourself. When I played "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" at my first piano recital I fucking tore up the joint.

People don't like change. Just look at how every time Facebook changes format, someone creates a petition about how they're never going to use Facebook again unless they change back. "But wait, didn't you say the same thing about THAT old format when IT was the new format?"

It's just the nature of the beast. People will always complain about how things don't work exactly like they used to. The best thing to do is just sit back with a little tequila and watch cartoons in your pajamas because you don't have to go into work today. It'll die down eventually.

[Banco]

Michael, I didn't see any of this as criticizing Don. This isn't his idea, Invision is who decided to make a butt-ugly Blogger/Invision/Facebook mashup what they support going forward. This site has essentially looked and functioned the same way for four years, and these changes are not all user-friendly. For intance: I am reasonably savvy and yet couldn't figure out how to quote you in my follow-up.

Ah, the voice of reason. Always refreshing.

[ol_ironstomach]

I would say we are all in what some folks call "violent agreement".

Now, are there any CSS gurus among us who'd be willing to take a shot at developing a site skin that hurts less? I shared an office nearly 20 years ago with the inventor of CSS, but sadly failed to absorb any of his genius.

[DonRocks]

I would say we are all in what some folks call "violent agreement".

Now, are there any CSS gurus among us who'd be willing to take a shot at developing a site skin that hurts less? I shared an office nearly 20 years ago with the inventor of CSS, but sadly failed to absorb any of his genius.

Dave, there are Invision "skinners" out there who have developed skins for old versions, which are apparently not compatible with version 3.0.0. But supposedly, the new release is much easier for skinners to work with, and there will be some perfectly acceptable skins coming through the pipeline shortly (I suspect weeks, if not days, from now). These can be purchased for $20-30 and I'm happy to do so.

(Note to the 99.9% of the world who doesn't care about the technical jargon surrounding Invision: A "skin" is what will change the general look and feel of the website.)

Here are some examples (although they probably aren't applicable to version 3.0.0):

ipbcustomize.com

ipbforumskins.com

theskinemporium.com

These are just three; there are others that can be found using Google. By all means, if someone wants to look into these, let me know what you find.

Cheers,

Rocks.

[Al Dente]

forumskins?

[Todd Kliman]

I have always maintained that it is unprofessional and irresponsibly agenda-driven for a professional food critic to review a restaurant before it has been in operation for at least six months.

Six months? That's ridiculous. At a minimum, we ought to wait six years. Seems to me the only fair and just thing to do -- to give a place the proper amount of time to settle in and find itself. Or close.

[Michael Landrum]

Six months? That's ridiculous. At a minimum, we ought to wait six years. Seems to me the only fair and just thing to do -- to give a place the proper amount of time to settle in and find itself. Or close.

Hmmm...and how long is the process of editing a manuscript from the time it is submitted until it is published?

I guess it depends on whether you view a restaurant the way you view a blockbuster Hollywood movie--all about the stars, glamorous premieres, and the boffo opening weekend box-office--or more like a play, where the cast, director, audience and playwright are constantly interacting, evolving, re-writing and improvising--and a thing of enduring value comes into being with time. Of course, a play requires knowledge, intelligence and patience from the participant-viewer.

Don't tell me you've come to value the former over the latter. Ryan Seacrest over Hilton Als? Gene Shalit over Pauline Kael? And who aspires to be the restaurant world's James Agee? (I mean besides the drinking).

And yes, the agenda to publish a review as soon as possible and to rush to publish every piece of insider news and gossip is in direct conflict with the long-term health of restaurant, unless it is a hyper-capitalized, PR-driven and media-manipulating vehicle for star-fucking. It also cheapens the profession of critic.

To bring it back on topic, don't all those complaints in the first three days seem silly, now that Don is fixing them one by one? A little time to let things work out is all I am advocating--especially when those complaints will most likely appear as criticism of the host, or worse, thoughtless petulance.

[ol_ironstomach]

I knew y'all were clockwatchers!

Thanks again, Don, for wisely managing what goes on behind the curtains of this site. Invision didn't exactly offer a seamless transition with this major upgrade, but with a little perseverence we'll all eventually get that warm fuzzy feeling back. Eventually.

[DonRocks]

Six months? That's ridiculous. At a minimum, we ought to wait six years. Seems to me the only fair and just thing to do -- to give a place the proper amount of time to settle in and find itself. Or close.

As far as I'm concerned, J&G is fair game for reviewing as of right now ... the morning after Jean-Georges Vongerichten led the media around like puppets and fed them a complimentary multi-course meal.

Or, should we wait six months for it to settle in?

[Michael Landrum]

As far as I'm concerned, J&G is fair game for reviewing as of right now ... the morning after Jean-Georges Vongerichten led the media around like puppets and fed them a complimentary multi-course meal.

Or, should we wait six months for it to settle in?

I believe the exemption from my above post applies (if someone strives to be the Michael Bay of the restaurant world, who are we to stop them?):

unless it is a...PR-driven, media-manipulating vehicle for starfucking

I wonder if anyone involved in the media frenzy remembers V--can I say it?--probably the worst steakhouse ever. (My hostility here is Pynchon-based, not competitor-based).

[youngfood]

I have some complaints. But I feel shitty. All my time on this board, all the chefs and GMs I've spoken to, I KNOW I'm supposed to tell the waiter/manager, but... fuck. I'm shy. And because I usually rely on the AMAZING advice I get from this board, it's been a long time since I've lambasted a restaurant. It's a long time coming. So here in my cowardice I present to you:

I hear what you are saying -- I can't remember the last time I said something significantly negative here and there seem to be increasingly few such posts that don't come across as unfair or based on an agenda. I don't think its inappropriate for you to say that your server was generally lacking and some of the food wasn't great though.

There's another reason I sometimes hesitate to complain here: it seems far too easy to do so and to end up getting freebies for your experience because of how many restaurant insiders are on here. I love this board and I love knowing the good spots to try, the best dishes to get, who the sommelier somewhere is and whether he/she is worth seeking out, but I'm not sure I want to get special treatment after the fact just because I happened to complain about a bad experience on here or even just because I participate here. Indeed I recall a prior complaint about the restaurant you are criticizing leading to the chef making a personal invitition for the diner to return. It feels like some folks abuse that and I'm not comfortable with that.

[monavano]

I hear what you are saying -- I can't remember the last time I said something significantly negative here and there seem to be increasingly few such posts that don't come across as unfair or based on an agenda. I don't think its inappropriate for you to say that your server was generally lacking and some of the food wasn't great though.

There's another reason I sometimes hesitate to complain here: it seems far too easy to do so and to end up getting freebies for your experience because of how many restaurant insiders are on here. I love this board and I love knowing the good spots to try, the best dishes to get, who the sommelier somewhere is and whether he/she is worth seeking out, but I'm not sure I want to get special treatment after the fact just because I happened to complain about a bad experience on here or even just because I participate here. Indeed I recall a prior complaint about the restaurant you are criticizing leading to the chef making a personal invitition for the diner to return. It feels like some folks abuse that and I'm not comfortable with that.

On the other hand, if a complaint about an experience leads to an offer to "make it up", it gives the restaurant a chance to rectify the bad experience and shows a real drive to please. These offers come in to the WaPo and Washingtonian chats quite a bit, and are received favorably. In fact, several times the diner will write back in to the chat to "close the loop" about the situation.

I don't see how this is a bad thing, barring abuse which I do not think most members of this board are prone to.

Complaining to get freebies is not good, then again, complimenting can really go a long way to improving a restaurant's business. It works both ways, so I say, go ahead and report what you liked, and what you did not like.

A good restaurant/chef/manager etc ought to care both ways.

[DanCole42]

Like I said, I would much rather criticize a restaurant to the restaurant's face, but I (and I think a lot of people) have trouble doing that. Even if the critics have, as I have, listened to people in the industry PLEADING to be told. Not out of the desire to avoid negative publicity, but because as people in the hospitality industry they truly desire for you to have a good experience.

I would never post a negative review in the hope of a comp. Morality aside, why would I want to solicit food I didn't enjoy in the first place?

I love getting comped in restaurants. I'm very shallow. It makes me feel like a totally hip badass*. "Look at me! It's like I'm in the mafia!" But the times I've been comped it's been because I had a good relationship with the chef/proprietor/was sleeping with the busboy, not because they felt they owed me something.

*I have very low standards for badassery.

[dcs]

I never understood why some folks expect to get a free meal if they do not like the way a dish was prepared. I understand if you are served an omlet with a screw in it, dealt a bad oyster that made you sick, or had an entire drink poured down your back, then maybe you would be due something. But if a meal was prepared more or less as intended and just did not suit your taste buds, why should the restuarant give it to you for free?

[monavano]

I never understood why some folks expect to get a free meal if they do not like the way a dish was prepared. I understand if you are served an omlet with a screw in it, dealt a bad oyster that made you sick, or had an entire drink poured down your back, then maybe you would be due something. But if a meal was prepared more or less as intended and just did not suit your taste buds, why should the restuarant give it to you for free?

Well, here's a what if? What if the dish is truly not done to your liking. For example, the risotto is very undercooked, your steak that you ordered medium-rare is well done, or the food is way, way over-salted. You send the dish back to be redone and then you have to wait, or wait while someone else in your party is staring at their dish-going cold. Or, perhaps they dig in and eat while you wait.

To comp a bit is not out of order. Not a free meal, but something.

There is a threshold of sorts that when a dish falls short, it surpassed just not suiting your palate.

Dan's lobster risotto is a perfect case in point. It would chap my ass big time to shell out $35 for that-and I probably would have sent it back. Christmas, Gordon Ramsey would have a field day with that risotto. It would have been tossed with great flourish into the trash can, plate and all!

[Lola007]

I never understood why some folks expect to get a free meal if they do not like the way a dish was prepared. I understand if you are served an omlet with a screw in it, dealt a bad oyster that made you sick, or had an entire drink poured down your back, then maybe you would be due something. But if a meal was prepared more or less as intended and just did not suit your taste buds, why should the restuarant give it to you for free?

I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I have the impression that people need to take more responsibility for their own choices. For example, I'm not terribly adventurous when it comes to seafood and am also recently trying to broaden my horizons by trying more Indian dishes and some spicier Thai dishes. Sometimes, I like a dish and sometimes I don't. But just because I personally didn't find something appealing doesn't mean it wasn't good.

[Waitman]

I never understood why some folks expect to get a free meal if they do not like the way a dish was prepared. I understand if you are served an omlet with a screw in it, dealt a bad oyster that made you sick, or had an entire drink poured down your back, then maybe you would be due something. But if a meal was prepared more or less as intended and just did not suit your taste buds, why should the restuarant give it to you for free?

Well, here's a what if? What if the dish is truly not done to your liking. For example, the risotto is very undercooked, your steak that you ordered medium-rare is well done, or the food is way, way over-salted. You send the dish back to be redone and then you have to wait, or wait while someone else in your party is staring at their dish-going cold. Or, perhaps they dig in and eat while you wait. To comp a bit is not out of order. Not a free meal, but something. There is a threshold of sorts that when a dish falls short, it surpassed just not suiting your palate. Dan's lobster risotto is a perfect case in point. It would chap my ass big time to shell out $35 for that-and I probably would have sent it back. Christmas, Gordon Ramsey would have a field day with that risotto. It would have been tossed with great flourish into the trash can, plate and all!

Dramatically different situations. In the first, the meal is "more or less as intended, " it just doesn't do it for you so you pass to make room for dessert (or a pizza on the way home). In the second, the meal is simply prepared wrong. In the first case, while a cool restaurateur might send out something new and free in the name of customer relations, I think you're a jerk if you expect it. In the second case, I think you might merit a drink if there is something obviously, inarguable wrong the first time -- though, again, there is no obligation, just taking your word for it and offering a do-over is enough -- and nothing comped until it's clearly screwed up a second time. Though, by then, I'm at the "don't bother" stage.

[DanCole42]

New topic.

How do people feel about mentioning things in a review that might be unique to one's personal experience? Maybe you go somewhere regularly and the waiter knows you and you get extra bacon. Even if it does enhance your enjoyment, is it fair to the restaurant to mention that in a public forum? Does it create unrealistic expectations? Is it a betrayal of an unspoken trust?

If I had a great time somewhere, am I restricted to only talking about those uniform elements that every individual could potentially enjoy?

[mdt]

New topic.

How do people feel about mentioning things in a review that might be unique to one's personal experience? Maybe you go somewhere regularly and the waiter knows you and you get extra bacon. Even if it does enhance your enjoyment, is it fair to the restaurant to mention that in a public forum? Does it create unrealistic expectations? Is it a betrayal of an unspoken trust?

If I had a great time somewhere, am I restricted to only talking about those uniform elements that every individual could potentially enjoy?

Why would it be unfair in mentioning it in a public forum? I think just about everyone knows that frequent diners, like frequent fliers, get different treatment. It also provides some context for the reader as to where the reviewer is coming from. How about thinking of the possibility of setting expectations for the 'unknown' diner that are not going to be met by the restaurant? That might be unfair.

[DaRiv18]

This issue treads awfully close to the FTC's new requirements for the disclosure of compensation.

[DonRocks]

New topic.

How do people feel about mentioning things in a review that might be unique to one's personal experience? Maybe you go somewhere regularly and the waiter knows you and you get extra bacon. Even if it does enhance your enjoyment, is it fair to the restaurant to mention that in a public forum? Does it create unrealistic expectations? Is it a betrayal of an unspoken trust?

If I had a great time somewhere, am I restricted to only talking about those uniform elements that every individual could potentially enjoy?

The best reviews are the most personal reviews.

[Lola007]

New topic.

How do people feel about mentioning things in a review that might be unique to one's personal experience? Maybe you go somewhere regularly and the waiter knows you and you get extra bacon. Even if it does enhance your enjoyment, is it fair to the restaurant to mention that in a public forum? Does it create unrealistic expectations? Is it a betrayal of an unspoken trust?

If I had a great time somewhere, am I restricted to only talking about those uniform elements that every individual could potentially enjoy?

I don't see why you wouldn't mention things that you consider unique to your experience. I also think there are all kinds of situations. Sometimes a waiter, restaurant owner, or manager will go the extra mile to try and please a diner regardless of whether he/she knows the person or not. Anyway, I've yet to read a review that isn't personal as people experience things differently, have different preferences, value different things, etc. My two cents, of course.

[KMango]

New topic.

How do people feel about mentioning things in a review that might be unique to one's personal experience? Maybe you go somewhere regularly and the waiter knows you and you get extra bacon. Even if it does enhance your enjoyment, is it fair to the restaurant to mention that in a public forum? Does it create unrealistic expectations? Is it a betrayal of an unspoken trust?

If I had a great time somewhere, am I restricted to only talking about those uniform elements that every individual could potentially enjoy?

Reviews of products and services, be it restaurants, operas, books, travel agents, or the latest exercise gear for dogs come with a certain, default stamp of "YMMV" (your mileage may vary). People who read reviews to blindly supplant, rather than supplement, their own judgment get what they deserve.

That being said, a good rule of thumb for situations might be "If the dining tables were reversed, and I was reading someone else's review, what would I want disclosed?"

[Heather]

There are certain restaurants that I won't talk about anymore on this board anymore because my treatment is not what the average user can expect, and to me, that is not a fair review. I don't think anyone's special treatment is interesting or informative (unless I am also looking to inveigle myself into some freebies and ego-stroking at said restaurant), as a matter of fact, it can cross into boasting. Nor should anyone find my treatment as a regular at certain establishments to be enlightening in any way.

Your milage may vary.

[JPW]

As can be seen by my recent post on Corduroy, there are certain places where I have personal relationships with people. I think that it is vital that if you there is anything that may cause your experience at a spot to be different than a person walking in for the first time to expressly mention it. It's not that the newcomer will be ignored or treated poorly, it's just that they may not get the extra taste or smile.

I posted about the $30 3 course meal at Corduroy being excellent because I think that it is, whether or not you can talk to the bartender about remembering your 5 year old sleeping in a car seat as a newborn at the bar tables in the old space. But I made sure to mention my relationships with people on staff because YMMV. Ultimately the reputation on recommendations is mine and if I recommend a place that serves someone a bad meal then my online name is toast. I like having a good reputation.

Poor meals I'll only post about in the case of it being a place that I think has a ridiculously high reputation based on what I experienced or is a place that should go out of business because it is just that bad.

[Rhone1998]

Poor meals I'll only post about in the case of it being a place that I think has a ridiculously high reputation based on what I experienced or is a place that should go out of business because it is just that bad.

Why? Why not just call it as you see it, good, bad, or ugly?

[JPW]

Why? Why not just call it as you see it, good, bad, or ugly?

Lots of reasons. For one, if I posted on every meal that I had out, people would find me to be an even bigger bore than they do now (or they would regard me as a Yelp elite reviewer).

A disaster is a disaster, no matter what.

An average or poor dish may be a one time slip or a pattern, but I feel like I don't have enough data on one visit to offer a summary judgement. In no way do I mean to make it look like I think that my opinion can make or break someone, but behind the restaurants that we criticize are people who have mortgaged most, if not all, of their life's savings to give it a go. I praise Thai Flavor on Colesville Rd. not just because I like thier food, but because I really like the couple who own it and their employees. Restaurant margins are incredibly thin, (and to be perfectly melodramatic about it) a couple of people for lunch each day could be the difference between staying alive and leaving jingle mail. I may not go back to a place where I had an average meal, but neither do I want to bias people against them when it may have just been a good meal not to my taste. As an average JPW, paying on my own dime, I'm "one and done".

Everybody makes their decisions on what meals to post about for their own reasons. I post about maybe 5% of the meals I eat out. These are my reasons and I'm happy to be open about them.

PS - Anyone who takes any of my posts on the Ray's empire as being objective needs to have their head examined.

PPS - or Corduroy

PPPS - or Ace Beverage

PPPPS - or Willett Whiskey

PPPPPS - you get the idea. I try to disclose wherever I have a vested interest. Occasionally, I forget. Or do I ??????

PPPPPPS - YMMV

[Rhone1998]

An average or poor dish may be a one time slip or a pattern, but I feel like I don't have enough data on one visit to offer a summary judgement.

I get it, and I appreciate this perspective, but I guess I would say that the value of posting review in forums like this is that people won't just walk away with a single opinion on a restaurant, but hopefully with the sum of the reviews posted about a place. If someone posts about a bad experience that in reality is a one-time slip up and where their review is a drop in a sea of otherwise glowing assessments, then no harm done, right? Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I feel that we're all better served if everyone is honest and forthcoming (two very different things) about their experiences.

That said, I think we all have emotional attachments to some restaurants and the people who run them that get in the way of objectivity...I don't know what the answer is to that, except, as you say, to be as honest about it as we can.

Dan

[Waitman]

How do people feel about mentioning things in a review that might be unique to one's personal experience? Maybe you go somewhere regularly and the waiter knows you and you get extra bacon. Even if it does enhance your enjoyment, is it fair to the restaurant to mention that in a public forum? Does it create unrealistic expectations? Is it a betrayal of an unspoken trust?

If I had a great time somewhere, am I restricted to only talking about those uniform elements that every individual could potentially enjoy?

I was talking about this problem with my good friend Bryan Voltaggio yesterday -- it's so hard to focus with all those little comped noshes showing up and the waiter hovering with the truffle shaver and the wine being decanted, but I felt it was important to discuss this while he was at my table -- and he really understood the situation. "When writing on Don Rockwell about how Volt is unquestionably the finest restaurant on the East Coast, you should mention that despite all the personal attention the bartender, maitre' d, sommeliere and I give you, we treat all customers as special, not just the regulars."

And sommeliere Ramon Navarez seems to agree. I brought it up the other night at my usual weekly "power dinner" at Adour, as Ramon was pouring a vertical flight of Leoville Les Cases, the better to match my Squab Breast and Foie Gras "Chartreuse" ("we'll just sell whatever you don't select at the bar") and saying: "Just because everybody doesn't get to wear the tastevin and pretend to be the "head sommeliere" so they can taste the '82 Petrus when someone else orders it (it always cracks Ramon up when I furrow my brow and pretend to wonder if the Montrachet or Gaja or whatever is any good, and the customer looks on with that worried look they get), and aren't invited to those impromptu tastings around the bar when Terry Thiese wanders in for a bite, doesn't mean that they can't have a superior wine experience here. We have an excellent selection of wines by the glass."

It's like [deleted at Don's request], hostess at [hip new restaurant with multi-million dollar design team and celebrity chef behind it] told me, as she was slipping her blouse back on and fixing her make-up: "just focus on the parts of the meal that someone coming in off the street could experience. If you act too mysterious, or share too much, you just sound like you're bragging."

[Banco]

I was talking about this problem with my good friend Bryan Voltaggio yesterday...

Hilarious!

[deangold]

It's like [deleted at Don's request], hostess at [hip new restaurant with multi-million dollar design team and celebrity chef behind it] told me, as she was slipping her blouse back on and fixing her make-up: "just focus on the parts of the meal that someone coming in off the street could experience. If you act too mysterious, or share too much, you just sound like you're bragging."

Oh c'mon... like we would expect the same 13 second experience. Spill dude!

[deangold]

Spill dude!

Did I really choose that particular word?!?

[DonRocks]

From How crucial is it for food critics to be anonymous? by Marc Fisher:

In the end, the web does give people with shared interests and expertise unprecedented opportunity to come together and help each other--as Chowhound and similar food sites have demonstrated. But as in any other art form, nothing quite competes with the ability of a smart and experienced critic to offer both useful advice and a running tutorial on the achievements and meaning of that art, whether it's cooking, moviemaking, or the performance of music or theater.

Marc creates a false dichotomy in this paragraph.

I haven't busted my ass for the past five years to let his comment go unchallenged: Marc, with genuine respect and admiration for both you and Tom Sietsema - we've got both of the above, right here. In abundance.

Cheers,

Rocks.

[Miami Danny]

From How crucial is it for food critics to be anonymous? by Marc Fisher:

Marc creates a false dichotomy in this paragraph.

I haven't busted my ass for the past five years to let his comment go unchallenged: Marc, with genuine respect and admiration for both you and Tom Sietsema - we've got both of the above, right here. In abundance.

Cheers,

Rocks.

Right on. There is a general anti-blogger slash internet user bias in Fisher's piece.

The CJR piece--today's Story Pick of the Day--quotes one food blogger justifying her decision to reject anonymity like this: "I aspire to be as personable as humanly possible to my reader as well as to chefs & restaurateurs alike." But toward what end? To get a free meal? To develop the chefs as sources? Certainly the motive cannot be to be a fair and unbiased judge of the food and the dining experience on behalf of readers, because developing a relationship with the restaurateur instantly colors that dining experience and makes it impossible for the writer to serve the reader's interests.

This is completely false and cynical. Bloggers, or any other critic, can obviously know their subject extremely well and still be able to write objectively about them and their 'art'. This is not just true in restaurant criticism, but all across the spectrum. Fisher may be standing up for the old-school so-called journalists, but his argument comes across as biased, and, dare I say, naive.

[DonRocks]

Fisher may be standing up for the old-school so-called journalists, but his argument comes across as biased, and, dare I say, naive.

I actually read the entire thing as being loyal, perhaps to an institution, perhaps to a friend, perhaps to a fault.

(Does anyone remember the days when Time (or Life, or Look, I can't remember which) would publish an article, and then in the next month's edition, there would be the Letters To The Editor section, and there would always be one graciously included anti-rant (inducing the readers to think to themselves, "Gosh, they're SO FAIR!") - the rant would always end with "Cancel my subscription!")