Criticizing the Critics

[iluvfood]

wow...it looks like you are not allowed to criticize this restaurant on this board. The poor guy in the deleted posts was forced to go away just because he expressed some negative feelings...when looking through this thread anyone who dares to say anything that is short of calling the restaurant Nirvana- will be slammed.

I have eaten at the restaurant a few times and it has been great and not so great. But of course that is my opinion.

Restaurants, like all service businesses need feedback to grow and improve. Not just glowing reports but they need to hear the not so great things as well. Only when they hear these not perfect things can they learn or change..or decide not to change. I would think that the management would be happy to hear constructive criticism.

This board is so aggressive that many would be intimidated to post anything beyond glowing reviews. Chill out everyone!

[Heather]

wow...it looks like you are not allowed to criticize this restaurant on this board. The poor guy in the deleted posts was forced to go away just because he expressed some negative feelings...when looking through this thread anyone who dares to say anything that is short of calling the restaurant Nirvana- will be slammed.

I don't think that's exactly what happened. Someone posted vague, secondhand criticism, and a number of people had questions about it. Everyone here is free to be as critical as they wanna be. Here:

I don't love everything about Ray's. The sauce for the sweetbreads is too sweet, I don't like the shrimp thing on the snacks menu, and the mashed potatoes that come with the hanger steak would be better without the ragu or whatever that is. All my opinion - YMMV.

[hillvalley]

Critical posts about ANY restaurant are always welcome. The problem with the negative posts that were deleted was that there were no qualifying statements about what was wrong or evidence to back it up. For instance, if the poster had said, "the mashed potatoes were bad" would probably get flamed. "I did not like the mashed potatoes because they were runny and lumpy at the same time and tasted of paste", is a perfectly fair post and the flames would be deleted.

We are a sensitive bunch (at times too sensitive) but as long as you explain the reasoning behind your statements your posts will not be deleted.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

wow...it looks like you are not allowed to criticize this restaurant on this board. The poor guy in the deleted posts was forced to go away just because he expressed some negative feelings...when looking through this thread anyone who dares to say anything that is short of calling the restaurant Nirvana- will be slammed.

I have eaten at the restaurant a few times and it has been great and not so great. But of course that is my opinion.

Restaurants, like all service businesses need feedback to grow and improve. Not just glowing reports but they need to hear the not so great things as well. Only when they hear these not perfect things can they learn or change..or decide not to change. I would think that the management would be happy to hear constructive criticism.

This board is so aggressive that many would be intimidated to post anything beyond glowing reviews. Chill out everyone!

To say something to the effect "their steak was inedibile, it came out pink" on their first post just does not convey any useful information on any level. Especially when the poster has never been to the establishment.

Oh, and welcome to DR.com, iluvfood. There is a separate thread for criticizing restaurants, which is perhaps where this discussion belongs. This particular discussion has been deleted once, but someone apparantly wants to beat this dead horse some more.

[blakegwinn]

I don't think that's exactly what happened. Someone posted vague, secondhand criticism, and a number of people had questions about it. Everyone here is free to be as critical as they wanna be. Here:

I don't love everything about Ray's. The sauce for the sweetbreads is too sweet, I don't like the shrimp thing on the snacks menu, and the mashed potatoes that come with the hanger steak would be better without the ragu or whatever that is. All my opinion - YMMV.

Steaks can be salty for my personal tastes at times. Booya. You know as one of the jackasses who for whatever reason decided to post a snide comment to that guy that got deleted, it wasn't that he had criticism it was that he had none. I had a friend who didn't like it. Um... ok. Thanks for sharing. If everyone started posting a comment on all the strings for each restaurant that read "My friend Joe-didn't like it." "My friend Jane thought it was ok." you would have 400 posts to sort through everytime you hit "view new posts". As an old lady once asked me, "where's the beef?"

[alan7147]

Critical posts about ANY restaurant are always welcome. The problem with the negative posts that were deleted was that there were no qualifying statements about what was wrong or evidence to back it up. For instance, if the poster had said, "the mashed potatoes were bad" would probably get flamed. "I did not like the mashed potatoes because they were runny and lumpy at the same time and tasted of paste", is a perfectly fair post and the flames would be deleted.

We are a sensitive bunch (at times too sensitive) but as long as you explain the reasoning behind your statements your posts will not be deleted.

Objectively this needs to work both ways. I have read many posts saying that the sweetbreads and sausage biscuts were excellent etc., but not every one of these posts says why they were excellent. Maybe it should be a requisite to back up any comment about a dish as to why it was good or bad -or- there should be equal opportunity to praise and metion shortcomings without having to write a thesis defending either point of view.

[blakegwinn]

Wow I can't believe I have such a strong opinion about any of this. I think we are all coming dangerously close to crossing into SERIOUS nerd/loser territory here. Like the kind of guys who start fights over bad calls in my flag football league.

[Spiral Stairs]

On the assumption that this string of posts will be moved to the restaurant criticism thread, I'll make one comment. I have never seen a reasoned critique of a restaurant, or its food, or its service, deleted here. That said, I have seen some unreasoned comments remain undeleted (or unflamed). In the spirit of self-examination, it is worth considering whether the deletion (or flaming) trigger is pulled a little more quickly for some places than for others.

[Heather]

Objectively this needs to work both ways. I have read many posts saying that the sweetbreads and sausage biscuts were excellent etc., but not every one of these posts says why they were excellent.

I scrolled back a few pages and there are plenty of descriptions of the food, not just raves. Someone said this upthread about the biscuits:

"Sausage biscuits" brings to mind sodden, crisco laden lumps with white gravy. That image could not be farther from what is served: light as air, spicy andouille biscuits with a little sauce alongside to dip into.

OK, I could have been a little more specific, i.e. it's a cheese sauce, not just a "sauce."

[mktye]

This was Mike834957, or whatever.

This was someone who clearly registered for the site with the quickest name he could get his hands on. This was someone who registered with the sole intent to criticize RTC based on second hand information. This was someone messing around with us, or a disgruntled former employee. This someone was a troll, pure and simple.

Clarification: If you look at Mike20878's profile (which is available to all members), you will see he registered on 24-Sep-06. He completed the same registration process as everyone else here and waited over two months before posting.

His choice of screen name is solely his business. And, as to his motivation for joining DR.com, only Mike20878 can answer that with certainty.

[Waitman]

Let's take a step back here. It's not like a regular made some unqualified post.

This was Mike834957, or whatever.

This was someone who clearly registered for the site with the quickest name he could get his hands on. This was someone who registered with the sole intent to criticize RTC based on second hand information. This was someone messing around with us, or a disgruntled former employee. This someone was a troll, pure and simple.

Show me someone with 100+ posts who makes negative comments like that, and THEN we can talk about the proper way to criticize.

You know, I recollect someone whose first (or second or third) post was a pretty thorough trashing of Citronelle based on a single visit several (many?) years ago. You may recall him, too. Someone looking at that post might have assumed that this rank newbie was, as you say, "a troll, pure and simple." But it turns out that the person wasn't just a troll and that -- as usual -- snap judgements based on little information tend to be wrong. I'd give Mike12345 a second chance to make a first impression if he came back on. It's worked for others.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

Naah...keep posting, trust your judgement and enjoy the "lively" discussions as they arise.

I disagree, start posting when you have something useful to add.

And posting PMs won't win you many friends. I'm still trying to figure out what you point was with that.

[blakegwinn]

You know I just gave myself a swirlie in the bathroom and I feel much better. I was really going geek for a second there. The flashback I had after reading this thread was back to college when I ran for and won a seat in the student government. I quit after a month with 3 straight meetings (Friday nights at 8!!???) where we debated Robert's Rules of order and whether proper protocol was followed on a resolution passed before I even became a member. The resolution: a bill declaring the student government's support for the president's (Ben Ladner) new "safe walk" program. Basically it was a hotline people could call to have a Public Safety officer walk you home. Mind you this program was enacted by the administration and our "resolution" did nothing but declare for ALLLLL (that read the AU newspaper) that we, the student body, were ok with it. If ladner hadn't just shoved his ears full of Russian Caviar to see what it felt like, he probably would have laughed himself silly (or paid a homeless guy to laugh for him) after hearing us debate for three solid weeks about some insignificant program we had no say over anyway. I tendered my resignation by hanging out at the rugby house doing funnels of Natty the next Friday. (Strangely the whole experience still sits on my resume....)

[Barbara]

You know I just gave myself a swirlie in the bathroom and I feel much better. I was really going geek for a second there. The flashback I had after reading this thread was back to college when I ran for and won a seat in the student government. I quit after a month with 3 straight meetings (Friday nights at 8!!???) where we debated Robert's Rules of order and whether proper protocol was followed on a resolution passed before I even became a member. The resolution: a bill declaring the student government's support for the president's (Ben Ladner) new "safe walk" program. Basically it was a hotline people could call to have a Public Safety officer walk you home. Mind you this program was enacted by the administration and our "resolution" did nothing but declare for ALLLLL (that read the AU newspaper) that we, the student body, were ok with it. If ladner hadn't just shoved his ears full of Russian Caviar to see what it felt like, he probably would have laughed himself silly (or paid a homeless guy to laugh for him) after hearing us debate for three solid weeks about some insignificant program we had no say over anyway. I tendered my resignation by hanging out at the rugby house doing funnels of Natty the next Friday. (Strangely the whole experience still sits on my resume....)

OK, OK, THIS got me to spew on the keyboard and laugh out loud. Wait'll Dame Edna gets home (he's drinking Crown Royal out of plastic cups in the equipment room with the building engineers who we just gifted with their Christmas bonuses) and I make him sit down and read this. Lord, luv a duck, is this familiar.

[youngfood]

wow...it looks like you are not allowed to criticize this restaurant on this board. The poor guy in the deleted posts was forced to go away just because he expressed some negative feelings...when looking through this thread anyone who dares to say anything that is short of calling the restaurant Nirvana- will be slammed.

I have eaten at the restaurant a few times and it has been great and not so great. But of course that is my opinion.

Restaurants, like all service businesses need feedback to grow and improve. Not just glowing reports but they need to hear the not so great things as well. Only when they hear these not perfect things can they learn or change..or decide not to change. I would think that the management would be happy to hear constructive criticism.

This board is so aggressive that many would be intimidated to post anything beyond glowing reviews. Chill out everyone!

Those posts were deleted with the poster's permission. They were unpopular because they offered no details and were all based on second hand information, which renders them less credible and less useful.

I totally agree with you about the value of constructive criticism. If you have some, offer it, but make it constructive. As someone considering making my first visit to a Rays post-DR.com preview dinner, I would welcome some advice about anything to avoid.

And chilling out is a good idea, but taking someone else's private messages and making them public when that person was trying to do you a favor by letting you know how your initial post would be perceived is not. Its surely not a good way to get folks to chill out...

[Joe H]

an ingredient. This is a post of mine from another board that I am quite sincere about. I note it on here because I have now read one post too many that describes "quality" this or "quality" that. For me, the writer obviously had absolutely no idea of what he/she was eating or talking about.

I've seen many recent posts on here that describe specific ingredients with the collective adjective "quality." Rather than Silver Queen the expression "quality" sweet corn is used. Rather than San Marzano the expression "quality" tomatoes is similarly used. For olive oil we can discuss Dal Forno's family oil or a particular grove from Badia Coltibuono but someone will want to say "quality" olive oil. "Quality" asparagus as opposed to sweet, thick spargel from a field just south of Stuttgart picked at the start of the season.... I may have handcarried a wheel of Reggiano on an airplane from Mantova that is still moist in the center; don't even consider describing this wheel as "quality" Parmigiano. Or "quality Reggiano." Don't call violane nano arborio from a particular field south of Verona as "quality" rice. Even "quality" arborio. Certainly not a field near Biella where the violane nano might have a slightly different flavor and texture.

I am sick-SICK!-of the expression "quality" to describe a foodsource or ingredient. For God's sakes! If you are going to eat it then give credit to what you are eating! Or, if you have no idea of what the source of what you are eating is then don't try to mask your ignorance and insult the reader by using the catchall "quality."

"Quality" potato chips. Kitch'n Kook'd from Maui are totally different from Original Good's yet they are both "quality" potato chips. Just as Angus beef and Chianina beef are both steaks that are delicious. Yet, they taste different. Totally different. And you/someone wants to describe these as "quality" potato chips or "quality" beef?

There is so much thought, so much effort, so much expense that goes into particular sourcing that using catchalls like "quality" is just an absolute prostitution of what the actual ingredient or source is about. I am tired of the hundreds of posts on here and elsewhere that talk about "quality" this or "quality" that. Give credit to the specific source!!!! And, if you have no idea or no level of sophistication to understand anything about this, then, don't even consider insulting the intelligence of the reader on a board like this by saying "quality."

"Quality" for me comes with how quickly I delete your post.

[alan7147]

I scrolled back a few pages and there are plenty of descriptions of the food, not just raves. Someone said this upthread about the biscuits:OK, I could have been a little more specific, i.e. it's a cheese sauce, not just a "sauce."

I said NOT EVERY ONE OF THESE POST SAYS WHY THEY ARE EXCELLENT. Yes, there are many descriptions of the food as well as just raves. Please read my comments/posts more closely.

[alan7147]

Let's take a step back here. It's not like a regular made some unqualified post.

This was Mike834957, or whatever.

This was someone who clearly registered for the site with the quickest name he could get his hands on. This was someone who registered with the sole intent to criticize RTC based on second hand information. This was someone messing around with us, or a disgruntled former employee. This someone was a troll, pure and simple.

Show me someone with 100+ posts who makes negative comments like that, and THEN we can talk about the proper way to criticize.

Ok buddy, you joined on March 24, 2006. Should I just have written off your (i.e. Citronelle) post as nonsense because you hadn't acheived "ventworm status" yet?

[mdt]

"Quality" for me comes with how quickly I delete your post.

Now that was a quality post! But seriously, you do not need to know where an ingredient comes from to say that it was good, tasty, average, quality, bitter, bad, etc. Just because it comes from a named place does not guarantee anything, granted the chances are pretty good that it will be of much better quality, but actual taste is more important.

Funny how the quality, whoops, San Marzano tomatoes that we used in our canned tomato taste test were voted at the bottom of the list. I guess we did not have quality tasters.

[synaesthesia]

Since we're on it. I'm not a huge fan of the whole quality sourced thing. Often I find it's stuck-up and a mental psych out. Not to say that I don't appreciate really good, fresh ingredients. I appreciate good quality ingredients and their like and the work that producers put into their products.

But the main issue is the amount of emphasis placed on utilizing sourced goods. It seems that some cooks (or perhaps consumers' acceptance of) use sourced goods as an excuse to not pay attention to craft and flavor. Good ingredients can only go so far. A great cook can bring those things to another level and create a transcendent experience.

Frankly if you want to pay more for a [fill in the blank] because it was hand massaged by some farmer and it still tastes crummy, be my guest.

[Barbara]

Now that was a quality post! But seriously, you do not need to know where an ingredient comes from to say that it was good, tasty, average, quality, bitter, bad, etc. Just because it comes from a named place does not guarantee anything, granted the chances are pretty good that it will be of much better quality, but actual taste is more important.

Funny how the quality, whoops, San Marzano tomatoes that we used in our canned tomato taste test were voted at the bottom of the list. I guess we did not have quality tasters.

Isn't this reminiscent of wine descriptions? I get lost when people talk about essences of "chocolate, berries, forest floor, tobacco, and most especially, TAR." I thought this was all a joke until I brought this up with Wabeck and he very seriously told me otherwise. My needs are simple. Does that $0.69 can of 365 Tomato Sauce at WF make a good pasta sauce? Why, yes it does, with the same doctoring you do with every other canned tomato sauce.

[mdt]

Isn't this reminiscent of wine descriptions? I get lost when people talk about essences of "chocolate, berries, forest floor, tobacco, and most especially, TAR." I thought this was all a joke until I brought this up with Wabeck and he very seriously told me otherwise. My needs are simple. Does that $0.69 can of 365 Tomato Sauce at WF make a good pasta sauce? Why, yes it does, with the same doctoring you do with every other canned tomato sauce.

A joke? Really? Does a glass of Chardonnay taste the same as a glass of Merlot? Of course not, and just about everyone can describe the differences. As opposed to the vague quality all the words you listed are specific descriptors that can be detected in the wine. Not everyone tastes the same exact things, but within reason most tasting notes are right on the button. Being able to convert what you taste to words is difficult but can be improved, like most other things, by learning. Sure some times you just want a tasty wine and do not care about the violets on the nose and the leather and pepper on the finish, but sometime you do.

[DanCole42]

"Quality" for me comes with how quickly I delete your post.

You should read Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

[Anna Blume]

The use of the noun "quality" as if it were an adjective irks me, as does the troublesome way the verb "impact" gets bandied about as if it meant "affect" or "influence" in contexts that do not involve teeth or dirt. I suppose I get to feel superior the moment I grit my teeth, but the satisfaction is transitory and slight, replaced all too soon with guilt when I recognize how petty and annoying grammatical arrogance makes me. Phew, back to a state of self-condemnation and humility. And writing sentence fragments. Realizing how very, very small I am and how far I have to go in my quest to achieve a state of utter contentment, peace and oneness with all of creation, I shake my head, shrug my shoulders, and smile. Detest someone because of his or her use of language alone? Nah. I'd rather buy the world a Coke.

[JPW]

My guess is that more people are interested in why a diner thinks a dish is bad, and not why something is "delicious" or "excellent." Perhaps we (as a community, not the royal "we" ) should push back at nondescriptive raves as hard as we push back at vague pans?

Something someone reminded me of last night...

When we post something nice about a place the worst that can happen is that someone else goes based on that recommendation and doesn't like it. A few dollars out of some consumer's pocket. Not a big deal.

When we post something negative, we're attacking the livelihood of the restaurant owner and employees.

I think the latter case justifies a higher burden of proof than the former.

Not a sermon, just a thought.

[DLB]

A few dollars out of some consumer's pocket. Not a big deal.

wasted money is a big deal to some of us!

[ol_ironstomach]

When we post something negative, we're attacking the livelihood of the restaurant owner and employees.

I think the latter case justifies a higher burden of proof than the former.

While I try to recognize the committment that goes into operating a restaurant, the fact remains that as diners, the most (but not only) important question is what happens on our side of the table. If anybody were to walk into this place tomorrow and order a meal, what kind of experience might they expect to have?

However, I still agree that negative comments do carry a higher burden of documentation. Not because somebody makes money off of it, but because pound-for-pound, a negative comment carries more weight in the reader's mind than a positive comment. I believe that even more than looking for a great time, every diner is looking to avoid a bad time. When you're dining with a group with mixed tastes, sometimes that's all you can hope for. It's not the perfect apple tree in the middle of the orchard that gets your attention, it's the five randomly-buried land mines that keep you out.

[smokey]

When we post something nice about a place the worst that can happen is that someone else goes based on that recommendation and doesn't like it. A few dollars out of some consumer's pocket. Not a big deal.

When we post something negative, we're attacking the livelihood of the restaurant owner and employees.

I think the latter case justifies a higher burden of proof than the former.

Not a sermon, just a thought.

I'm with DLB on this; I disagree.

I'm struck by the language you use on this. "A few dollars out of some consumer's pocket. Not a big deal." vs. "attacking the livelihood of the restaurant owner and employees." Whoah--attacking the livelihood? And, if one's overall experience at a restaurant was negative (not simply an appetizer that one didn't like), that's more than "a few dollars out of some consumer's pocket." That might be closer to $80-100 for a couple. And, let's not forget, that couple may themselves (or one of them) be a restaurant employee. Just like the restaurant employee whose livelihood we're concerned about in the other case.

I don't think an unequal burden of proof is appropriate for negative vs positive reviews. I think, in fact, that burden of proof is off language to use here, because it's pretty hard to 'prove' anything about our experiences at restaurants. I think that all of our posts (positive and negative) will be more enlightening when they are accompanied by greater detail explaining what we liked/didn't like, what our expectations were, etc.

My reply is longer than yours, but is no more meant as a sermon, merely a different opinion.

[Spiral Stairs]

Don't forget that there are numerous threads on this site containing post after post trashing a restaurant. Some of those posts are supported by evidence. Some are not. Yet I rarely (if ever?) have seen any objection to unsupported, often glib, thrashings of restaurants that, to the hivemind, are "bad" restaurants. These negative comments are just as damaging to the livelihoods of those affiliated with "bad" restaurants as to those affiliated with "good" restaurants.

An unsupported criticism of a "good" restaurant, however, quickly provokes invocation of the "support your statement!" mantra.

It seems to me that there is a whole range of standards applied in this community. Which standard is applied depends both on the content of the comment and the restaurant's reputation among the hiveminded.

The even-handed solution is to encourage (because it is not possible to require) that ALL posts be based on evidence and that they are reasonably clear as to what that evidence is.

</buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>

[JPW]

All right, let's give this one last try.

Consider the following 2x2 matrix. (sorry that the table is not very readable. Graphical presentation is not exactly the strong point of this software or my ability to use it)

************* "Good" Restaurant | "Bad" Restaurant

Positive review | 1 | 2 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Negative review | 3 | 4 |

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Case #1 (good restaurant/positive review) - everyone's happy. diners go based on review and enjoy selves. deserving restaurateur makes money and keeps employees employed and paid.

Case #2 (bad restaurant/positive review)- pissed off customers have chance to balance the positive review. "waste" money, but don't have worry about paying mortgage or keeping jobs.

Case #3 (good restaurant/negative review) - negative review keeps customers away. less of a chance to get a balance of reviews. ability of owner to pay rent and/or pay employees threatened.

Case #4 - (bad restaurant/negative review) customers happy to avoid. business suffers or closes. whatever "good" employees there were hopefully find work elsewhere.

In any statistical inquiry, you set the level of significance based on whether false positives (here good reviews of bad places) or false negatives (here bad reviews of good places) are more important to avoid. To me, the relative stakes as mentioned above and the ability to help correct a false positive mean that it is more important to avoid the false negative. There is also ol-ironstomach's point that bad reviews stick in the mind more than good reviews. These are why I think a pan requires more evidence than a rave.

Of course, this is just our small Internet input into the success/failure of any restaurant (or any business for that matter). There are any number of issues that have nothing to do with reviews that can affect how a place does.

[blakegwinn]

I think a post on this board might actually (on a good day) match the readership of an article in the AU newspaper I mentioned in my last post. And I think the grand signifigance of a DR post and its power to change the world around us is probably about the same as the vocal critique I gave to Herm Edwards through my TV on Sunday. He does not give LJ enough carries and boy did I let him know it. I am sure Herm, Ben Ladner, and all the restaurant owners around DC are all glad I care so much but none of them has (at least not yet) called to beg me teary eyed, to withdraw my public criticisms.

So my resolution for the New Year is to use my searing rhetoric to bring at least one DC restaurant that I don't like crawling to its knees. By next december I guarantee you I will have at least one area GM calling my cell phone telling me there are tumbleweeds blowing through his dining room and that they only served one deuce and party of 8 tourists complete with name tags in the last threee weeks. Blaming me for his being forced to lay off 2/3's of his waitstaff. He will be BEGGING me to pull down the venomous posts and vicious thrashings I have disseminated to the world through this board. Oh I can't wait. I haven't decided who the lucky restaurant will be but I DARE someone not to comp me a round of drinks or to not refill a 1/3 full glass of water. Restaurant GM's be warned, you should download a picture of me and print it out for all your hostesses so they can warn the staff not to f*** with me. Now where should I go to lunch.....

[TedE]

In any statistical inquiry, you set the level of significance based on whether false positives (here good reviews of bad places) or false negatives (here bad reviews of good places) are more important to avoid. To me, the relative stakes as mentioned above and the ability to help correct a false positive mean that it is more important to avoid the false negative. There is also ol-ironstomach's point that bad reviews stick in the mind more than good reviews. These are why I think a pan requires more evidence than a rave.

Of course, this is just our small Internet input into the success/failure of any restaurant (or any business for that matter). There are any number of issues that have nothing to do with reviews that can affect how a place does.

Ah, but there is one huge flaw that you are overlooking here: any "statistical analysis" you can throw out there for restaurant reviews is completely and utterly bogus. Primarily you are ignoring the fact that the basis for any behavioral study (after all that is what we are talking about here) is fundamentally based on the fact that you subject groups come from the same pools. There has to be some independant variable here, and in the case of restaurant reviewing there is none aside from the fact that reviewers are (supposedly) human, cognizant of their surroundings, and have eaten at the restaurant in question. Apart from that there is a HUGE amount of variability: diner's background, socio-economic status, familiarity with cooking technique, familiarity with ingredients, knowledge of restaurant operations, pickiness, grumpiness factor, baseline level of assholeness, egocentricity, etc, etc.

The results you mention are not a false positives/negatives. A false positive is having your blood work come up positive for HIV when in fact you are not infected; the test is showing something that just isn't there. Who says that a good review of a "bad" place is a false negative? According to whom? The diners, and as we've seen that is worthless. I know people who love Bucca di Beppo, a "bad" restaurant. But they like it. genuinely LIKE it. No false positive there. Same goes for bad reviews of good places. To illustrate: we were at Hank's this past summer on a gorgeous day and a small family of tourists had wandered over to our part of the neighborhood and sat down for an early dinner. They were clearly not Hank's target audience: the food was not to their liking, the prices were too high compared to what they were used to, and they were frustrated that the the restaurant could not offer them something more akin to their liking (all of this gleaned from their comments to the staff and to each other while the staff was away since we were seated next to them in the closely-spaced restaurant). They would undoubtedly have given the place a bad review if asked about their experience, and could have probably detailed specific examples of their unhappiness.

A false negative is someone deliberately panning a restaurant for spite (happens all the time). A false positive is a PR type fluffing their client anonymously (lord knows this happens all the time). These are clear violations of the social contract that cloud the pool of reviews. So is life, restaurants have to deal with it. If I have a bad time at a "good" restaurant and someone asks me about it you can be damn sure I'm going to tell them what I thought. Same goes for the good experiences at a supposedly "bad" place. There are several DR.com members that I've learned to ignore when it comes to certain restaurants. Having read their thoughts and responses to critical reviews it is clear that their personal views of an establishment precludes them from accepting that others may have had different experiences, and, more importantly, that those views are just as valid as their own. That is kind of sad, and it devalues the otherwise meaningful contribution of sites like this to the collective DC dining experience. There, I said it!!

[ol_ironstomach]

Ted, I think that's the most articulate summary of the foodie blogger dynamic I've yet seen.

[JPW]

TedE,

I don't disagree with you. I was trying to keep it as abstract as possible. I purposely did not include the human element in order to provide a framework for decision making. I only meant to show possible results.

Certainly, one person's "bad" restaurant can be another person's "good" restaurant. Whatever objectively makes them good or bad will tend to be overwhelmed by human variability in any given review. Using your examples, I'd much rather run the risk of not liking Bucca de Beppo and having a chance to post a rebuttal, than avoiding a place like Hank's that I may enjoy (although I doubt I would because I'm don't really like oysters). Therefore, I'm going to rely more on the content of the review of the bad as well as the source of the review in terms of quality and predelictions.

When jparrott talks wine, I listen to him, not only because he knows wine, but because he knows my taste in wine.

I'll trust Rocks' review of a place/dish much more so than someone I've never met or whose palate I don't know and trust. Anybody who reads anything I post about RTC, should probably take it with a grain of salt. I try to make it as clear as possible, that not only am I regular, but I really like the people there.

PS - Hey Jake, should I pull Plotnicki over here for this one?

[mdt]

And I think the grand signifigance of a DR post and its power to change the world around us is probably about the same as the vocal critique I gave to Herm Edwards through my TV on Sunday.

Hmmm, I seem to remember an event that a group of board foodies had at Corduroy that precipitated an incredible surge in the number of pork belly orders over the next week or two. It would be interesting to see how many people read this site when visiting the city and looking for restaurant info.

[Waitman]

Something someone reminded me of last night...

When we post something nice about a place the worst that can happen is that someone else goes based on that recommendation and doesn't like it. A few dollars out of some consumer's pocket. Not a big deal.

Do spare a thought for those young parents and college students, marriage proposers and client-entertainers, and those simply not affluent enough to fine-dine regularly to whom one night out is a significant emotional and financial investment, a rare treat and, should it go bad, a potentially crushing disappointment.

********

I have said this before but, as long as I am here:

1) Criticism, deserved or not, comes with the territory when you open a restaurant. They're big boys, they can handle it.

2) If you're a good restaurant, you'll get more praise than criticism, live a long life, and employ many waiters and line cooks. Note how many more bad restaurants stay open than good restaurants close.

3) The best thing about the internet is that it allows, as Mao put it, a thousand flowers to bloom. Any moron can get on and write something (even me). It's beautiful that way, very different from allowing an elite handful of observers and critics the only access to the public. We can either begin the long march back to corporate/autocratic control, or we can accept that a few people with whom we disagree -- or who are inexperienced, or ill-spoken, or have different tatstes, or are just stupid -- are going to get through. That's the way it's supposed to be.

4) People who read public comments are grown-ups, people who surf the 'net have critical faculties. They know how to read a restaurant thread and grant or deny credibility. To pretend that only we, the Rockewellians/eGulleters/Mouthfullers posess these gifts and are thus empowered to strike back ruthlessly lest a beloved boit is harmed, is a bit condescending.

[TedE]

I don't disagree with you. I was trying to keep it as abstract as possible. I purposely did not include the human element in order to provide a framework for decision making. I only meant to show possible results.

But I think we can agree that the premise is just kind of useless. Ignoring the human element doesn't make any sense when the human element is all that really matters. Did you have a good time? Did your taste buds have a good time? That's what this all boils down to. We can't fake this like in figure skating and fall back on technical parameters. OK, we could, but that would be boring: "I found that the salt content of the fritters was aggressive at 547 ppm where an optimal concentration would have been closer to 450. Additionally the viscosity of the veloute was far to thin at a measurement of 96 cP, whereas the accepted standard is in the 120-125 range." (Actually, OK, I'm a geek; that might be a good diversion)

When jparrott talks wine, I listen to him, not only because he knows wine, but because he knows my taste in wine.

I'll trust Rocks' review of a place/dish much more so than someone I've never met or whose palate I don't know and trust.

Exactamundo: you have limited your pool of subjects to one that closely approximates your own tastes and/or aspirations. Now we can talk stats! On a site like this, where the participants share at least vaguely similar backgrounds and experience with dining and food, we could hope that the same thing mihght hold true, but it's clear from the differences of opinion expressed here that even those similarities are washed out by others. Pick your battles, get to understand where your fellow contributors are coming from, and for godssake learn to accept that yours is not the only voice that matters.

[Al Dente]

I want to have sex with Salma Hayek.

Finally, an opinion I can get behind... so to speak.

[JPW]

But I think we can agree that the premise is just kind of useless. Ignoring the human element doesn't make any sense when the human element is all that really matters.

Not really. It provides you with a framework for analyzing the opinions of others of whom you have less than perfect information. Sure, I'd love it if I always had someone whose opinion I knew and trusted tell me about a place, but that's not necessarily going to be the case. Hypothetically, let's take you. You're the only person who's recently posted on Restaurant X. I've seen your posts, but don't necessarily know what your tastes are. I'd demand more content from a pan that you wrote than a rave for all the reasons listed in above posts.

On a site like this, where the participants share at least vaguely similar backgrounds and experience with dining and food, we could hope that the same thing mihght hold true, but it's clear from the differences of opinion expressed here that even those similarities are washed out by others. Pick your battles, get to understand where your fellow contributors are coming from, and for godssake learn to accept that yours is not the only voice that matters.

Agreed

[DLB]

I don't buy the argument that a bad review from an individual on this board will impact the livelihood of the employees of a restaurants. I don't even believe that a negative review from the Post could destroy a business. There are many restaurants that don't get talked about on this board that are quite successful(The Washington business journal just reported that the Clyde's restaurant group had $80MM in revenue this year). I do however, think that some people on this board take this food thing way to seriously. Is it really necessary to challenge every critic, or delete posts that are not in line with what everyone else is saying? I just don't see how this board could be that influential, in terms of destroying a restaurant because of what is posted here.

[TedE]

I'd demand more content from a pan that you wrote than a rave for all the reasons listed in above posts.

Like others I disagree that the burden of proof for negative reviews is greater than positive reviews. Personally, I'm no more likely to visit a place because someone gushes over it without specifics than I am to dismiss a place because somebody was seated next to a person that they didn't find attractive and that colored their entire visit. In fact, those reviews get the least consideration of all due to the fact that I can't sure that such a review wasn't penned by a miserable, truly friendless, attention whoring sonofabitch (possible, maybe even likely) or a fawning, free-drink-grubbing, loyal sycophant (also possible). Any review, good or bad, that doesn't mention specifics is ignored. Then again I am an individual and not the notoriously fickle reading public whose restaurant knowledge does not extend to goofing off at work on a forum dedicate to such things. Such things may have a greater impact on a public that is looking for concise, Zagat-blurbed advice about where they should spend their dining dollars. As others have said restaurants just have to deal with it as part of their operation. Well run restaurants serving good food do not go out of business because some moron slammed them anonymously on the web.

[blakegwinn]

ALRIGHT! That's it. I had a checklist with the terms "technical parameters" "Restaurant X" "fundamentally based" and "burden of proof" and agreed when I checked all of them off I would quit. I'm done. If anyone needs me I will be funneling Allagash over at the rugby house. (What can I say, I have matured a lot since college.)

[jm chen]

Is it really necessary to ... delete posts that are not in line with what everyone else is saying?

Posts get deleted when they're inflammatory, and then it's not just the negative posts, it's all the stuff around them. One of my favorite sites, Television Without Pity, has very strict moderation, including rules against "boards on boards" talk. And it makes for better reading, both there and here.

Because who wants to read pages of foodies arguing whether other foodies have the right to express themselves in a certain way on a certain forum? On occasion, that is a useful conversation to have, and that's why there's this thread for it.

But in the grand scheme of things, thank goodness it's mostly confined to this thread. I'd rather read reviews that say the scallops were good or the scallops were bad, not page after page on whether a particular diner wouldn't know a properly seared diver scallop if it sprung out of her nose singing Good Night Irene.

[Heather]

There's no greater burden of proof on a pan than a rave, especially on the internet where, in the estimable Waitman's words, any moron can get on and write something. A slam is more interesting, especially on a place that the board loves, and will get more attention and stir up more emotions. Unqualified raves are more suspicious, IMO.

attention whoring sonofabitch

See, that carries more weight with me.

[johnb]

There's no greater burden of proof on a pan than a rave, especially on the internet where, in the estimable Waitman's words, any moron can get on and write something. A slam is more interesting, especially on a place that the board loves, and will get more attention and stir up more emotions. Unqualified raves are more suspicious, IMO.

See, that carries more weight with me.

Not having posted in this thread previously, I'd like to now take out my stick and beat the dead horse myself a bit. Apologies in advance. I hope my thoughts add some value.

I don't agree that the same "burden of proof" is needed for a positive as for a negative commentary, on grounds of logic. Specifically, if someone finds a dish or restaurant experience generally very good or excellent and says so, this automatically implies that the many specific components of that experience were properly done and pleased the writer. Otherwise, it could not have been described in those terms in the first place. Consequently, it is not necessary to describe the goodness of each of those components--the reader already can draw that inference. If the experience was not pleasing, however, there can be many specific reasons--not all of the components of the experience need to have been displeasing, only one or a few. Thus, it is incumbent on the reviewer, or at least helpful to the reader, to say just what it was that was wrong (the mashed potatoes tasted great and had just the right amount of butter, but they ran all over my plate and shorted out the electric candle in the centerpiece).

This is not to say there is anything wrong with filling in the positive details; it may well make for a more interesting and even useful piece, but strictly speaking it shouldn't be as necessary as in the contrary case.

The problem of publicists, self-appointed touts, and, it must be said, morons, is a separate issue, since they can always fill in invented positive details if they want. The solution there is to take a measure of the source when reading these things.

All of that said, the only real way to know how a place is is to try it. The broad range of reviews is helpful in narrowing down one's choice of where to spend one's limited time, but a reliance on a single or a few reviews is always dicey, no matter how well intentioned was/were their writers.

Just my humble contribution.

[Anna Blume]

I don't buy the argument that a bad review from an individual on this board will affect the livelihood of the restaurant's employees, either.

[qwertyy]

Specifically, if someone finds a dish or restaurant experience generally very good or excellent and says so, this automatically implies that the many specific components of that experience were properly done and pleased the writer. Otherwise, it could not have been described in those terms in the first place. Consequently, it is not necessary to describe the goodness of each of those components--the reader already can draw that inference. If the experience was not pleasing, however, there can be many specific reasons--not all of the components of the experience need to have been displeasing, only one or a few.

If I'm correctly parsing the gist of your post, I respectfully disagree. I think it's wrong to believe that a bad experience is personal but a good experience is universal. I may find one meal excellent, but you know--I don't know that much about wine. An experienced conoisseur may deem the same meal a disaster. Or vice versa. (Well, I'm not THAT wine-stupid, but you get my idea...)

I was out to dinner with a large, fun group the other night. One participant thought it was fabulous all around, but couldn't really put it into words--good food, he said, nice surroundings. But our server was a bitch, I said, and while the food was good, it was remarkably unremarkable. Huh, he said, yeah, you're right about all that.

Which is not to say he's not astute, it's just that he cared more about the company. I'd have liked to have read his full, "good" review on that meal, just because then I could know he didn't take fully into account gradations of food or service.

[Chris Cunningham]

Two people can sit down together and have the same exact meal, and these two people can have two polar opposite experiences within their own mind and own perceptions of this meal. This is a fact of life. There is no explaining this phenomenon called personal opinion. It's like a wine. If you like wine X but a "wine professional" tells you that it is not a good wine, and eventhough you really enjoyed it, you change your opinion because of their comment--you my friend are a sheep, and deserve to be led to the slaughter. Here is a fact: If you like it, it is good. The same holds for food as well. Yes, one can educated themselves by trying different wines and foods to better increase their culinary threshold and have better experiences, but do any of us eat"extaordinarily" each meal....No we don't. Each and every meal is not a mind-blowing, life alternating experience for most of us. And even if you ate at Citronelle or Per Say every night for a month, you would not find everything perfect and to your liking, and I guarantee, that you will grow bored with it. I know more about wine and booze than most people I meet(it is my proffesion) However, I am never going to scoff or burst someone's bubble when they said that they enjoyed so and so wine/gin..I will offer them something that I think is better in order to expand their horizons and give them another experience. I think most people on this board have realist expectations with regards to their meals in a variety of establishments, and all these opinions, including mine, are just that:OPINIONS So go forth and enjoy being alive and being able to eat out.

[Chris Cunningham]

I was out to dinner with a large, fun group the other night. One participant thought it was fabulous all around, but couldn't really put it into words--good food, he said, nice surroundings. But our server was a bitch, I said, and while the food was good, it was remarkably unremarkable. Huh, he said, yeah, you're right about all that.

Which is not to say he's not astute, it's just that he cared more about the company. I'd have liked to have read his full, "good" review on that meal, just because then I could know he didn't take fully into account gradations of food or service.

Your friend said exactly what he thought about the meal, yet it seems that with your comment, a meal in his mind went from good to unremarkable I think all you did, was to knock the wind out of his sails. This is not a personal attack on you, rather I would just like to show a prime example of opinion-whick is individual to us all. I know you eat out often and post alot here, but what do you expect from every meal that you eat out- a band to be playing at the conclusion?

[edenman]

Just finished reading "Turning the Tables", the Steven Shaw book (hey, it was $6 on bookcloseouts) and although most of it was entertaining and/or informational, i'm not sure i agree with this little passage:

There is, to my mind, absolutely nothing wrong with a critic have ties--close ties--to the community about which he writes. In my opinion, it is preferable from a standpoint of providing the best possible coverage. To me, the primary function of restaurant criticism should not be something so prosaic as reporting on the average meal and labeling it with some stars. Rather, restaurant criticism should parallel other forms of criticism--in art, literature, architecture, and music--such that critics are champions of excellence who promote the best within the industry while exposing the worst.

Obviously, with Restauranteurs participating on this board, there is some level of familiarity between the informal critics (us) and them. But I'm not sure I agree at all about formal restaurant critics having close ties with owners/chefs, or, more importantly, on the nature of the "primary function of restaurant criticism". I think the vast majority of customers would prefer a completely unbiased review of the food: indeed, a "prosaic" evaluation of the quality of food that an average diner would receive. It's certainly a tough line to toe, in any case. Thoughts?