Criticizing the Critics

[DonRocks]

In general, what constitutes a “great” dining experience?

It's like what constitutes porn: I know it when I see it (or have been in it).

[Jacques Gastreaux]

It's like what constitutes porn: I know it when I see it (or have been in it).

Jacobellis v. Ohio (Stewart, J, concurring)

[Waitman]

How does one define a “great” meal? Is it the quality/quantity of the food? The uniqueness or variety of the menu? The company? The service? Do your standards/expectations change depending on the type of eating establishment ($$ vs. $$$)?

I realize that there cannot be a universal, objective standard, but what are your personal benchmarks? In general, what constitutes a “great” dining experience? What's on your "checklist"?

If you have to ask...

[Heather]

Or, is it the “seen and be seen” factor?

I base all of my dining opinions on the "see and be seen" factor.

I realize that there cannot be a universal, objective standard, but what are your personal benchmarks? In general, what constitutes a “great” dining experience? What's on your "checklist"?

It depends. For me, the company almost always makes the meal. The food might be exquisite, but if I'm not having a good time it might as well be McDonald's. Great conversation can make me (almost) overlook an mediocre meal.

[Escoffier]

I realize that there cannot be a universal, objective standard, but what are your personal benchmarks? In general, what constitutes a "great" dining experience? What's on your "checklist"?

In no particular order: presentation, flavors (and how they blend/stand-out), taste, service, friendship, conversation, ambience. The bar isn't necessarily lower for McDonalds than Eve, it's that expectations are different and so standards are adjusted as required. YMMV.

[vsky]

I don't want to create a new thread called regulars, and didn't check for the thread either but move or delete as appropriate. But I have to say that I a former PT server (7 years until last march) and as much as I pretend to afford, a regular DC diner, I seem to see a disconnect between who (whom?) the House considers "Regulars" and who as diners consider themselves regulars. Factually they may be the same: a diner who regularly eats at the restaurant.

From the House perspective some of these regulars are regularly pleasant and delightful, and some are regularly more difficult. Now of course the restaurant should give excellent service to both, but if one regular gets special rules or treatment then maybe the person who wonders why they aren't getting the extra special treatment or god-forbid free stuff, similarly, they should take stock of how they behave as a regular customer. Also the difficult regular may be wooed and tried to be won over, but to no avail do they appreciate the special treatment and does their difficultness and fault-finding deteriorate. More on the disconnect:

A "Pleasant Regular" would never expect or question others' special treatment a "Difficult Regular" both expects and questions others special treatment (But mommy they got more cake then me...come on), regularly. Additionally a "Pleasant Regular" also tips properly and makes sure that their guests do too. A difficult regular doesn't tip well, and sometimes less than appropriately and certainly doesn't make sure their guests do the same (I'm applying all of this to service worthy of its tip). FYI... A "Difficult Regular" is often known to tip verbally. A "Really Fabulous Regular" overtips (unnecessarily) and often overlooks minor service/restaurant flaws (and certainly doesn't talk smack of any kind about a place they want to be given the royal treatment at, again come on...just to clarify lest I be questioned on that point - everyone should receive excellent service at all times, but not extra...) There's probably more to all of this, but I'll stop here for now.

[Barbara]

A "Pleasant Regular" would never expect or question others' special treatment a "Difficult Regular" both expects and questions others special treatment (But mommy they got more cake then me...come on), regularly. Additionally a "Pleasant Regular" also tips properly and makes sure that their guests do too. A "Really Fabulous Regular" overtips (unnecessarily) and often overlooks minor service/restaurant flaws (and certainly doesn't talk smack of any kind about a place they want to be given the royal treatment at, again come on...just to clarify lest I be questioned on that point - everyone should receive excellent service at all times, but not extra...) There's probably more to all of this, but I'll stop here for now.

GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!! There are two restaurant owners/chefs who, along with their waitstaffs, get EXACTLY this kind of treatment from Dame Edna and myself. To the point that our tipping policy was questioned by the new people we introduced at least one of the these places to during RW. Do we ALWAYS get comped stuff? No, but it's happened often enough that we have ceased being embarrassed by it. Do we forgive lapses in menu and/or service? You betcha. Are these people deserving of our devotion and patronage? Without any doubt. Are they deserving of anybody else's devotion and patronage? In my humble opinion, without any doubt. What else do you think we are supposed to say? I want to walk in the door and have people's faces light up when they see us, KNOWING we are going to be fed excellent food and drink and NOBODY on the waitstaff is going to be stiffed. And, we won't be complaining about minor stuff on this board or anywhere else, because we know that any such issues can be discussed with the management. Is that so terribly wrong?

[Billy DeLion]

Me ? I think I must be an anomaly, I just try to be a REGULAR guy. I'm not sure if I lack the requisite sophistication or I just don't have too much time on my hands.

BD

[mdt]

Craig is also a fan of sweet breads, which we happily discovered on the menu. He hasn't ordered them in years, ever since he had a truly disgusting version of them at a highly-regarded place, which will go unnamed.

And, we split an order of the Potatoes Anna (much better than at the same unnamed place).

Why is everyone so damn afraid to name names? It is like a damn guessing game. If the food was not good we should discuss it. Was it an off night, not something to order at that particular place, etc.

Waiting for "I don't want to get piled on" responses. Of course there will be some blow back, but that type of discussion is good.

[JPW]

Why is everyone so damn afraid to name names?

On the whole I agree with you, Mike.

In this case, I inferred that the particular dish was consumed too long ago for it to be relevant or fair to name names today.

[Keithstg]

On the whole I agree with you, Mike.

In this case, I inferred that the particular dish was consumed too long ago for it to be relevant or fair to name names today.

This is a good point. Maybe my comment is better located in the "Criticizing Restaurants" thread, but there is/should be a statute of limitations on criticizing a restaurant online. To name names well after the fact is unseemly, to say the least. Maybe a two-month window would be reasonable. After that, too late.

[DonRocks]

[it is not the moral and sacred obligation of members here to "name names" if they choose not to do so. I would suggest sending the member a PM if you're curious. Cheers, Rocks]

[porcupine]

delete

[Barbara]

On the whole I agree with you, Mike.

In this case, I inferred that the particular dish was consumed too long ago for it to be relevant or fair to name names today.

As usual, Joe, you hit the nail on the head. It's been several years now since we have eaten there and the place has lots of current fans. The two of us aren't really in search of novelty when we go out to eat and we also aren't interested in being disappointed. Plus, when you look at the value factor, we think in terms of "It's going to cost more than Corduroy (and now RTC), but will it be as good?"

[mdt]

As usual, Joe, you hit the nail on the head. It's been several years now since we have eaten there and the place has lots of current fans. The two of us aren't really in search of novelty when we go out to eat and we also aren't interested in being disappointed. Plus, when you look at the value factor, we think in terms of "It's going to cost more than Corduroy (and now RTC), but will it be as good?"

I guess I missed the years qualifier in the post. That said, I still think we need to discuss the good and the bad.

[Heather]

I guess I missed the years qualifier in the post. That said, I still think we need to discuss the good and the bad.

You first, hon.

Seriously, I've been one to name names in the past, and I completely understand why someone else wouldn't want to.

[Biscuit Girl]

Why is everyone so damn afraid to name names? It is like a damn guessing game. If the food was not good we should discuss it. Was it an off night, not something to order at that particular place, etc.

Waiting for "I don't want to get piled on" responses. Of course there will be some blow back, but that type of discussion is good.

I agree 100% with you on this. Why are some people so afraid to rock the boat? I think too many places become sacred cows and that may not always be a good thing. No restaurant is exempt from having an off night. So when you have a problem or criticism be fair, construction, honest and say which restaurant it was. I sure the chef would be most interested in knowing the good as well as the bad. And I doubt there are many good chefs out there who wouldn't be willing to correct any issues that get ragged on. They want happy customers as much as we want good meals.

[bilrus]

I think it somewhat depends on the type of complaint. Is it an "off-night" for service or a badly cooked piece of fish. I tend to shrug those off.

If it something more systemic or indicative of other problems or something that is a recurring problem, then it is all fair game.

[DanCole42]

Dan's Laws of Restaurant Criticism

1) No one should pressure another to criticize a restaurant.

2) No one should pressure another not to criticize a sacred cow.

3) Individuals should be encouraged to present criticisms, even of sacred cows.

4) Critics are encouraged to include any and all appropriate qualifiers of their remarks including, but not limited to, "this occured several years ago," "we've never had a negative experience before this time," "everything else was fantastic," "we've only been there once," and "the waiter was in his rights to ask us to leave because of what crazy, incontinent Uncle Fred did to the garde manger."

5) Everyone should take all criticisms with a grain of salt based on the qualifiers in Law #4, and not make conjectures about the critic's simian ancestry. See Law #2.

Case Study:

Willaweena had a bad experience at Frankie Dean's Kansas City Seafoodium five years ago. "Frankie's," as it's affectionately known by the locals, happens to be a favorite of the town's foodie population.

Frankie's happens to come up a lot on the local foodie forum run by former Chief's running back Ron Dockwell. It's what they call a "sacred bull."

Should Willaweena mention her bad experience there?

YES!

If she decides she doesn't want to, should anyone pressure her to?

NO!

If she does, should she mention it was five years ago?

YES!

After reading her qualified review, the other "Dockwellians"can chime in: maybe they've had a similar experience, recently. Maybe the management's changed in the past five years, so armed with this new information, Willaweena can return, knowing that her experience will be a better one!

I'm incredibly nosy. If someone wants to keep something private, I'll pry and pry until I get punched. However, I'm not a hypocrite, so in addition to being nosy, I'm also an open book.

I think people should present their qualified criticisms regardless of potential outcome, but I also think anyone who wants their criticism kept private should have that respected.

If we all adhere to the Five Laws, I think things will go a lot more smoothly here in beautiful Kansas City.

[Waitman]

Solon has spoken.

[alan7147]

Solon has spoken.

And is rolling over in his grave. WTF, my head is spinning from that post.

[DanCole42]

Why well thought out BAD reviews are actually GOOD:

Thoughts from a RTC Post

As I've said before, negative experiences should be posted about. This is a public and open forum, and I don't think anyone should have to keep their mouth shut.

Someone voicing a negative opinion should be an opportunity, not for defensiveness or derision, but for several things:

1) Giving a restauranteur specific feedback about his/her business.

2) Giving others in the biz a look at what may be a unique and/or unanticipated customer service issue.

3) Allowing readers the opportunity to form their own judgments about a restaurant. Many of the sacred cows on this site have been very good to us patrons, so we do have a certain responsibility to protect their images in return for the favors, food, and excellent service they've provided us, but a single positive review among forty negative ones probably won't change someone's opinion, so why should a single negative review among forty positive ones?

4) I've certainly had bad experiences at restaurants. Experiences that were so bad that I wouldn't have gone back HAD IT NOT BEEN for the voices of various acquiantances saying that I should give it another shot. Generally, I'm glad I listened to them.

To put it another way, I'm a big Star Wars fan. I think anyone who doesn't like the original trilogy is crazy, but I always come across people who DON'T like it. And I'm always interested in hearing their critiques because it gives me a benefit of an outlook so far beyond my normal mindset that I then appreciate the movies even MORE.

People shouldn't feel threatened or upset by a negative review of something they hold as dear to the hearts of so many as our sacred cows (and Star Wars).

In short, there's nothing BAD about a GOOD bad review, in fact it can be a positive thing for many people concerned.

[smiller]

Kudos to Tom Sietsema for correctly nailing this place in his review today. PS7 has great bread and little else!

[DonRocks]

Kudos to Tom Sietsema for correctly nailing this place in his review today. PS7 has great bread and little else!

[TMartin, I'm going to insist that you back this claim up with some specifics, especially since you're new here and are posting under a fake screen name. What, exactly, don't you like about PS7? How many times have you been, and what have you had there?

I mean welcome to dr.com and everything, but sheesh!

Cheers,

Rocks]

[alan7147]

I think most of the people on this board are loath to post negativity about a restaurant experience just after a place opens up. I emphasize "most."

Sorry,I disagree, once they start taking my bills it is fair game.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

Sorry,I disagree, once they start taking my bills it is fair game.

I guess I need to figure out a better way to emphasize MOST.

[Waitman]

Sorry,I disagree, once they start taking my bills it is fair game.

The problem is that reviewing a restaurant in detail when it first opens is that it is dishonest intellectually and misleading practically.

Whether or not they are charging full price is irrelevant to the fact that you know, I know and everybody on this board knows that restaurants in their first weeks are not firing on all cylindars. Knowing that, to go into a place and savage it anyway is, frankly, a little juvenile. Cautious optimism with red flags raised where it is helpful for the restaurant to see them is fine. Restaurants need to know these things. Petulance, when you knew goingin that the restaurant was not going to be fully up to speed is a little asinine. Like someone walking into a bar looking for a beef. (And if you don't know that a brand new restaurant won't be at its best, think twice before giving the world wide web the benefit of your wisdom).

On the practical side, any unduly judgmental review (good or bad, but mostly bad) of a newborn does those who read it a disservice, giving them a false impression of what the restaurant is like. Again, warnings are fine, given in the spirit of mutual support. But writing something about a week-old restaurant that that will echo through cyberspace forever should be done with appropriate forethought.

Restaurants grow, patrons learn, we're all better off if criticism is given gently and heeded appropriately. And if you want to take a shot at Citronelle or Palena or Ray's (get ready to rumble) and can back it up, I want to hear it. I love vicious posts. Slapping a baby in its crib, however, is the act of a bully.

[DonRocks]

Slapping a baby in its crib, however, is the act of a bully.

Unless it's a child of Satan.

[jparrott]

Unless it's a child of Satan.

Objection! Relevance?

[DonRocks]

Objection! Relevance?

P. O. Sh.

(Did Willard Room really get 1.5 stars?!)

[Miami Danny]

The problem is that reviewing a restaurant in detail when it first opens is that it is dishonest intellectually and misleading practically.

Whether or not they are charging full price is irrelevant to the fact that you know, I know and everybody on this board knows that restaurants in their first weeks are not firing on all cylindars. Knowing that, to go into a place and savage it anyway is, frankly, a little juvenile. Cautious optimism with red flags raised where it is helpful for the restaurant to see them is fine. Restaurants need to know these things. Petulance, when you knew goingin that the restaurant was not going to be fully up to speed is a little asinine. Like someone walking into a bar looking for a beef. (And if you don't know that a brand new restaurant won't be at its best, think twice before giving the world wide web the benefit of your wisdom).

On the practical side, any unduly judgmental review (good or bad, but mostly bad) of a newborn does those who read it a disservice, giving them a false impression of what the restaurant is like. Again, warnings are fine, given in the spirit of mutual support. But writing something about a week-old restaurant that that will echo through cyberspace forever should be done with appropriate forethought.

Restaurants grow, patrons learn, we're all better off if criticism is given gently and heeded appropriately. And if you want to take a shot at Citronelle or Palena or Ray's (get ready to rumble) and can back it up, I want to hear it. I love vicious posts. Slapping a baby in its crib, however, is the act of a bully.

If everyone on this board knows what you say they do (and I agree that they do), I'm pretty sure, from personal experience , that people here are clever enough to pick and choose what to take seriously, and what to discard. If Tom Sietsema were to review a place after one visit, or in its infancy, that would be wrong. But we are not 'reviewing' restaurants, more like posting impressions and comments. On the net. That's called the freedom of being an amateur.

[brendanc]

When you open a restaurant, any restaurant, to the public you will find yourself challenged by a myriad of issues, not the least of which being that your work and the work of those around you will be scrutinized in the public domain. TS, TK, the CP, here, and innumerable blogs that choose to post their experiences are going to publish their opinions. I cannot comment on PS7 directly as I have never been, but I know the Pastry Chef a little and have a tremendous respect for her, I also have a tremendous respect for Peter himself and the work he's done here in DC so when I do visit I'll formulate my own opinions of the restaurant. This being said you have to know going in that the time between opening and the first "official" review are going to be directly proportional to the anticipation the public has for the opening of the restaurant. The bigger the splash, the sooner the review, watch how quickly BLT Steak gets theirs or Eric Ripert when he arrives in town, or Michel's new place, or Robert Wiedemeir's for that matter, they'll get written up as fast as legitamately possible. When you open a restaurant, you have to know this is coming.

In regards to the belief that any reviewer would actively enjoy "spanking" a restaurant is ludicrous. These people are professionals and enter into each new restaurant wanting it to be good and successful and to add something to DC dining. How depressing of a life would someone have if their only pleasure came in the form of schadenfreude at the expense of individuals in the very industry that creates a market for their job. We will never always agree with the reviewers of record, but how often is it that a professional in DC or NY, SF, LA or other places really "misses the boat" in regards to a restaurant.

[Waitman]

If everyone on this board knows what you say they do (and I agree that they do), I'm pretty sure, from personal experience , that people here are clever enough to pick and choose what to take seriously, and what to discard. If Tom Sietsema were to review a place after one visit, or in its infancy, that would be wrong. But we are not 'reviewing' restaurants, more like posting impressions and comments. On the net. That's called the freedom of being an amateur.

And I am all for the freedom of being an amateur. "Let a thousand flowers bloom," as the Great Helmsman once said. But being an amateur doesn't mean one must be amateurish.

Even in the free-for-all ether and ethos of cyberspace there exists the ideas of "fair" and "unfair," and "useful" and "not-so-much." Ragging a restaurant that has only just opened strikes me as neither useful nor fair. Defensible, yes. But what does it bring to the discussion?

[Miami Danny]

But what does it bring to the discussion?

The immediacy of raw experience-which can be both exhilirating, and scary.

[crackers]

A similar discussion about amateur reviews of brand new restaurants, and charging full price for not-ready-for-prime time meals, came up when Agraria first opened. A sampling:

Yes, Agraria is open and charging full prices, but that does not mean the public should reject its food based on someone’s questionable opinions. Paying for flawed meals in new restaurants is an investment for which diners should be willing to incur initial losses. It amounts to a leap of faith, a nurturing process of tolerance and patience similar to that which parents undergo while newborn children are learning how to walk. . .

if people want restaurants to succeed, they should be willing to make concessions in the early days, including paying full price for their meals. I do NOT mean to say they should pay for something that is unacceptable; I merely suggest that the expected standard in the first months of a restaurant’s existence should not be perfection.

I realize that one pays full price for the seats even when the understudy has taken Ms.Minelli's place for this performance. Nonetheless, a restaurant which charges premium prices while explaining that their kitchen is remains unready for prime time should expect a little blowback.

[Heather]

The immediacy of raw experience-which can be both exhilirating, and scary.

I fail to see what's so scary about posting anonymously on the internet.

I agree with Waitman (the more recent iteration ). Snarky reviews are delicious, and I wish more people on this board would be a little more critical of their sacred cows. But an amateur hit piece based based on one meal at a brand new restaurant seems unfair.

[Waitman]

A similar discussion about amateur reviews of brand new restaurants, and charging full price for not-ready-for-prime time meals, came up when Agraria first opened. A sampling:

(Waitman @ Jul 10 2006, 09:04 PM)

I realize that one pays full price for the seats even when the understudy has taken Ms.Minelli's place for this performance. Nonetheless, a restaurant which charges premium prices while explaining that their kitchen is remains unready for prime time should expect a little blowback.

Hoist on my own petard. Maybe I've matured.

[Heather]

A foolish consistency, and all that.

[Waitman]

The immediacy of raw experience-which can be both exhilirating, and scary.

or of cheap shots, which are exhilerating and scary as well.

[mdt]

I fail to see what's so scary about posting anonymously on the internet.

I agree with Waitman (the more recent iteration ). Snarky reviews are delicious, and I wish more people on this board would be a little more critical of their sacred cows. But a amatuer hit piece based based on one meal at a brand new restaurant seems unfair.

Are you kidding? And give up the special treats that they receive?

[Heather]

Are you kidding? And give up the special treats that they receive?

Oh yes. Better be nice or you give up the cookie plate.

[DLB]

How long should a customer wait to discuss a new restaurant on this board? Should we also hold back any postive feedback to see if everything goes south as well? I have been to quite a few opening nights on my own dime and during return visits not much if anything changes about he food. Sevice issues can be fixed, the food however is what it is in MOST cases.

I understand that some people here hold off on posting anything negative about some places, because of personal relationships that have been develop and their desire to see these people succeed. I have no issue with this, I would do the same, but don't bash those who don't agree with you.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

How long should a customer wait to discuss a new restaurant on this board?

You should be able to discuss a new restaurant at any time. However, in the interest of fairness, one should only post about a negative experience if the experience was had an appropriate amount of time after the restaurant has been open. I think TS does not "officially" visit a new restaurant until after it has been open at least a month. And then he visits the place several times to ensure consistency or inconsistency.

[Camille-Beau]

Snarky reviews are delicious, and I wish more people on this board would be a little more critical of their sacred cows.

Isn't the reason a restaurant becomes a "sacred cow" (if we must continue to use that term) to someone is because they love the place? If so, then perhaps they don't have anything of significance to criticize.

[Heather]

Love it every time? Every single thing ever? Maybe I am cynical, but I don't believe that's possible.

[mdt]

You should be able to discuss a new restaurant at any time. However, in the interest of fairness, one should only post about a negative experience if the experience was had an appropriate amount of time after the restaurant has been open. I think TS does not "officially" visit a new restaurant until after it has been open at least a month. And then he visits the place several times to ensure consistency or inconsistency.

Why only talk about the good? Makes me think that anything I read is complete BS. I think negative experiences can and should be reported, even on day one of being open to the public. Of course, the poster should note, or temper the comments realizing that the the place just opened. Openly trashing a brand new place serves to provide very little credible information.

I think that all comments provide a good baseline for future visits. This baseline would provide information to see how things are changing, for the better or not, over time.

[Jonathan]

write something negative if you feel something is worthy of criticicism...none of you guys need to wait, you are not tom sietsema, and your writings are not as far reaching or influential. He waits a certain amount of time so he can provide his readership with an accurate portrayal of what to expect from food or service at a restaurant (and if anyone has ever worked in a new restaurant, one knows that the first several weeks are not an accurate portrayal of either)....

as camille beau writes, sacred cows are such because lots of people love them. it seems stupid to criticize a restaurant just to knock it off its pedastal. but if a significant gripe occurs at any restaurant it seems only fair to bring it to attention. but significant doesnt mean a limp fry or no spinach in the to-go box or something that is nether systemic or the norm. everyone makes gaffes in life and its important in all reaches of society to distinguish between gaffes and major issues.

[deangold]

You should be able to discuss a new restaurant at any time. However, in the interest of fairness, one should only post about a negative experience if the experience was had an appropriate amount of time after the restaurant has been open.

I think a customer of mine put it best (right after I comped his meal last night because it to 45 minutes to get the entrees out):

I can't fault you for falling off the bicycle. But I can complement you for dusting yourself off and getting right back on. We will be back and we will tell our friends!"

This can happen to a restaruant on its first day or on its 15th month or 15th year.

The beauty of a lightly moderated board lke DR.Com is that many people will use it as they see fit. There are few rules because there are few rules. Other boards are heavily moderated andthey ahve very regimented ways of dealing with things.

I post on the few occasions I do dine out when I do have a good experience, or a disappointing one, or somewhere in between. I don't post when there is nothing of note to post about (hence no postings raving about the quick service at the Taco Hell in Wheaton at 1am or the consistently bad service at the Burger King in Chevy Chase.

[Waitman]

write something negative if you feel something is worthy of criticicism...none of you guys need to wait, you are not tom sietsema, and your writings are not as far reaching or influential. He waits a certain amount of time so he can provide his readership with an accurate portrayal of what to expect from food or service at a restaurant (and if anyone has ever worked in a new restaurant, one knows that the first several weeks are not an accurate portrayal of either)....

as camille beau writes, sacred cows are such because lots of people love them. it seems stupid to criticize a restaurant just to knock it off its pedastal. but if a significant gripe occurs at any restaurant it seems only fair to bring it to attention. but significant doesnt mean a limp fry or no spinach in the to-go box or something that is nether systemic or the norm. everyone makes gaffes in life and its important in all reaches of society to distinguish between gaffes and major issues.

I'm curious as to why anyone would not aspire to an "accurate portrayal of what to expect."

Limp fries are a major crime and arguably indicative of a kitchen not sweating the details.

There is innate value in knocking things of pedestals, though not gratuitously so. It makes people think.

[Heather]

There is innate value in knocking things of pedestals, though not gratuitously so. It makes people think.

As long as it doesn't devolve into some kind of culinary Madonna/Whore complex.