Restaurant reviewer busted

?
"Boron Elgar" wrote

I read reviews at times, but make my own decision. What one person
perceives as a design defect or fault, another sees as a feature with great
benefit. Your too bland food my be just salty enough for me.

I've also read reviews that are just plain factually wrong, so take care
when making your decision.
 
"Dave Smith" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I grew up in Las Vegas. At an early age, I was introduced to good food. As
an adolescent and young man, I was introduced to fine dining.

Still, restaurants are a personal experience. There are Greasy Spoons I
would gravitate towards, and then some restaurants with various stars
besides their names where I would not spend $150 a person for about eight
ounces maximum of cooked foods, most of it looking like miniature child
portions.

Most "food critics" are total snobs, IMHO, and rate the experience more than
the actual food. And since they're generally not paying a dime for it, I
think their opinions are faulted from the start.

How would a person who does not particularly like seafood evaluate any
seafood restaurant? How would a person heavily inclined towards British or
European foods evaluate a Chinese or Indian cuisine restaurant?

To me, any dining experience is a combination of ambience, service,
demeanor, food, and the intangible on-the-fly decisions made by every server
and cook. But some reviewers overrate towards one or the other, like there
is some perfect criterion that only the reviewer knows, and expects the
restaurant to match.

I consider my neighbor, friend, or work associate to be a better reviewer of
whether or not a restaurant is good rather than someone who is pampered and
expects their agenda to be catered to.

YMMV

Steve
 
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:


I'm not that fussy. "-)



Okay. My method for using them has never disappointed us.



--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
 
blake murphy wrote:


Not exactly a reply to you, Blake, but I've been surprised by the people
who think the restaurant did the right thing here! The complaint that
the reservation was not in *her* name is balderdash. Perhaps it was the
name of one of the other *three* diners? And since when was it de
rigiguer that the reservation name holder has to be the payor? Hasn't
anyone ever dined as a group and one member of the party claims the
ticket for all?
 
On 03/01/2011 6:35 AM, [email protected] wrote:


I was in my doctor's office one day and there was a young lady in the
waiting room. When the doctor came out to call me in he say her and told
her to get out. She started to say something about wanting to explain.
He just repeated.... get out and don't come back.

I have no idea what had happened there but there is an example of a
doctor refusing to serve someone.
 
Lyndon Watson wrote:



If the reservastion made in another of the party's name? If you dine
with 3 other people, whose name does the reservation *have to* be in?


Or because the best girl friend made the reservation with a good meal in
mind rather than the reviewers financial gain.


Oh pahleese.. when you're in my care and I laugh at some stupid joke you
make, does that mean you don't want me to care for you? Am I lying or
just humoring you? And is it important?

It isn't to me since I know her privacy is her own business and why it
is important to carry out her job. If I review a restaurant on my local
whine-fest paper does that entitle the restaurant to my name?
 
Dave Smith wrote:
So she's never allowed to just go out to eat at anything fancier than a
McDonald's just because she reviews *some* restaurants? She wasn't there
to review that one, and just wanted to eat a meal with friends.
 
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 09:18:48 GMT in rec.food.cooking, Rhonda Anderson
wrote,

Michelin stars, okay. L.A. Times stars, or yelp.com stars, not so much.
 
On Jan 3, 9:50?am, David Harmon wrote:

We can sometimes guess if the person seems obvious, asks a lot of
questions, especially if they have a notebook. Usually, when we get a
heads up, it is because somebody recognized them from a previous
visit, or the person seemed to ask all teh right questions at their
counter, so they warn the people in other departments.

Most of the time, we have no idea. It could be a guy in a suit, a lady
with kids, you name it. Anybody.
 
On 02/01/2011 7:14 PM, gloria.p wrote:

Apparently, it was not a singular opinion. According to one of the cited
articles, the partners had previously discussed this particular reviewer
and had agreed that she was not the type of critic they wanted reviewing
their restaurant.

I suppose that Virbila can honestly saw that the service she experienced
was horrible.
 
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 09:31:14 -0500, "Nancy Young"
wrote:

Is that some sort of a mall walking group?

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.
 
On 01/01/2011 2:13 PM, Goomba wrote:

I don't know that it was "the right thing" for the restaurant to do, but
I don't see it as being completely negative. The guy said that she had
been excessively cruel in her review of one of his partner's
restaurants. He does not have to expose his business to the same
treatment. As see it, the worst he has to worry about is that he will
get a lot of exposure. I don't think that people will automatically
reject a place that refused to serve a critic. On the contrary, he will
probably get s a lot of support for it. Basically, he got a lot of free
advertising.

As for the sanctity of reviewer anonymity. I can understand why they
want to be anonymous when they show up to do a review. But hell, we live
in a society where paparazzi stalk celebrities to no end, and the
tabloid (readers) eat it up. While the reviewer's anonymity may have
been temporarily compromised, she will have gained considerable
notoriety. People who never heard of her now know her name and may read
her reviews.

I don't think that anyone insisted that he must reserve in her own name.
It's simply part of the issue of credibility. Someone claimed that she
said she wasn't there to review the restaurant. I don't know if it is
true that she even made that claim, but, personally, I have to doubt it.
It was a new restaurant. The use of the pseudonym fits the critic MO.
 
Back
Top