Restaurant reviewer busted
- Thread starter EnaasNess
- Start date
scottyieoittie
New member
Dave Smith wrote in
news
[email protected]:
The following comes from an LA Times article about the incident, in
which the star rating system is explained
http://tinyurl.com/33uaaov
"In a letter to the editor Sunday, reader Stan Brothers echoed others in
criticizing Virbila for being overly stingy with her stars. "She has
raved about restaurants, then given them two out of four stars," he
wrote. "Restaurant owners and Times readers deserve a more realistic
standard."
The reality, though, is that a two-star review means, by definition, a
very good restaurant.
When we were establishing the criteria for judging restaurants, we
started with the assumption that L.A. was a world-class city and its
restaurants should be able to stand alongside those of anyplace else. It
would be insulting to the restaurants to do anything less ? to judge
them "on a curve."
Thus, a four-star restaurant is one that is the equal of any restaurant
in the United States, and even the world. Accordingly, there have been
very few of those. In Southern California, only the latest incarnation
of Patina and Jos? Andr?s' Bazaar have earned that recently.
Just short of that perfect score have been Craft in Century City and
downtown's Rivera, with three-and-a-half stars each. A three-star
restaurant is one of the best in the state. There have been several of
these: Providence, Red O, WP24, Ammo, Valentino, Hatfield's, Lazy Ox
Canteen and Bouchon earned that rating this year.
By far, the vast majority of the places we have written about have
earned two or two-and-a-half stars, which, as described in the box that
accompanies every review, is a "very good" restaurant."
The writer of the article also notes that they give restaurants a 3 mth
grace period before reviewing and Virbila was not there to review it.
--
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia
news
[email protected]:The following comes from an LA Times article about the incident, in
which the star rating system is explained
http://tinyurl.com/33uaaov
"In a letter to the editor Sunday, reader Stan Brothers echoed others in
criticizing Virbila for being overly stingy with her stars. "She has
raved about restaurants, then given them two out of four stars," he
wrote. "Restaurant owners and Times readers deserve a more realistic
standard."
The reality, though, is that a two-star review means, by definition, a
very good restaurant.
When we were establishing the criteria for judging restaurants, we
started with the assumption that L.A. was a world-class city and its
restaurants should be able to stand alongside those of anyplace else. It
would be insulting to the restaurants to do anything less ? to judge
them "on a curve."
Thus, a four-star restaurant is one that is the equal of any restaurant
in the United States, and even the world. Accordingly, there have been
very few of those. In Southern California, only the latest incarnation
of Patina and Jos? Andr?s' Bazaar have earned that recently.
Just short of that perfect score have been Craft in Century City and
downtown's Rivera, with three-and-a-half stars each. A three-star
restaurant is one of the best in the state. There have been several of
these: Providence, Red O, WP24, Ammo, Valentino, Hatfield's, Lazy Ox
Canteen and Bouchon earned that rating this year.
By far, the vast majority of the places we have written about have
earned two or two-and-a-half stars, which, as described in the box that
accompanies every review, is a "very good" restaurant."
The writer of the article also notes that they give restaurants a 3 mth
grace period before reviewing and Virbila was not there to review it.
--
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia
On 03/01/2011 12:29 PM, gloria.p wrote:
Or allegations of inappropriate behaviour. I was surprised at the
incident. This guy is a great doctor and always seems to be in good
humour. His diagnoses and prognoses are always bang on. I have been
going to him for more than 39 years. He is getting on in years and is
close to retirement age. I will have a hard time finding a doctor who I
trust in as much as this fellow.
Or allegations of inappropriate behaviour. I was surprised at the
incident. This guy is a great doctor and always seems to be in good
humour. His diagnoses and prognoses are always bang on. I have been
going to him for more than 39 years. He is getting on in years and is
close to retirement age. I will have a hard time finding a doctor who I
trust in as much as this fellow.
Rebs(L)Dale.
New member
On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 05:00:19 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
that used to be true, to a degree. but those days are long gone. even
'right reverend' cuts no ice today.
your pal,
blake
that used to be true, to a degree. but those days are long gone. even
'right reverend' cuts no ice today.
your pal,
blake
Mel ~ Got Corgi?
New member
On 06/01/2011 1:40 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
I have referred to other places where restaurant reviewers are treated
as celebrities. In the UK their pictures are published beside their
reviews. It seems that some American reviewers prefer to operate with
the impression that they operate anonymously, suggesting that there is
no chance that they they are getting special treatment.
Some of the articles I read said that top chefs and restaurant owners
already know who the reviewers are and recognize them. That is exactly
what we are dealing with here. The managing partner recognized the
reviewer. Apparently, she was not so anonymous.
I have referred to other places where restaurant reviewers are treated
as celebrities. In the UK their pictures are published beside their
reviews. It seems that some American reviewers prefer to operate with
the impression that they operate anonymously, suggesting that there is
no chance that they they are getting special treatment.
Some of the articles I read said that top chefs and restaurant owners
already know who the reviewers are and recognize them. That is exactly
what we are dealing with here. The managing partner recognized the
reviewer. Apparently, she was not so anonymous.
Soccer chicka!
New member
On 08/01/2011 1:47 AM, Giusi wrote:
I had a good pretty good job. I never had days where I didn't want to go
to work. I had a lot of freedom on the job. I used to go to the yard,
pick up my vehicle and take off and do my work for the day. I only saw
my boss about once a month.
I had an opportunity to retire early at full pension and there were
changes coming up at work that I didn't like. I was going to lose my
freedom. I bailed out and I haven't looked back.
I love being retired. I like not having to wake up early in the morning
and heading out to work on someone else's schedule.
I had a good pretty good job. I never had days where I didn't want to go
to work. I had a lot of freedom on the job. I used to go to the yard,
pick up my vehicle and take off and do my work for the day. I only saw
my boss about once a month.
I had an opportunity to retire early at full pension and there were
changes coming up at work that I didn't like. I was going to lose my
freedom. I bailed out and I haven't looked back.
I love being retired. I like not having to wake up early in the morning
and heading out to work on someone else's schedule.