I finally got a chance to peek at the the SF Chronicle’s list of the Top 100 SF (Bay Area) restaurants this afternoon. Although I don’t necessarily agree with everything included or excluded from the list, the comments added to the Top 100 list for 2009 proved to be a much more interesting read. Many of the commentators for some reason or another, felt the urge to call Bauer out, ranging from the reasonable (Tartine is off the list?) to the utterly ridiculous. But now that we are shifting from a sole reliance on faceless, yet trained food critics to hearing the opinions of the critical masses – those faceless critics of unknown background proliferating on the interwebs – the harshness of criticism leveled at food critics from the ‘common folk’ appears to be on the rise. Reasonable? Irrational? Keep reading, then you decide.
Re: Nepotism in reviews
Bauer is personal friends with Alice Waters, so each time one of her little minions opens his own place, Bauer is biased and gives glowing reviews, whether or not they are deserved… That’s it. I’m calling Bauer out on his nepotism BS reviews. This list is tainted, lacks integrity and I feel bad for all of the top notch restaurants on this list actually deserving recognition to be associates with this list.” – Tigerz
I personally find this argument to be ludicrous… it would make no sense for a reviewer to risk his own reputation and jeopardize their career in order to give props to a friend. If anything, I could see a reviewer providing constructive criticism to the owner in hopes that their feedback would be implemented, obviating the need for a poor review.
Cuisine is ephemeral, for lack of a better term. It resting a little bit on the vision of the owner, and more so on the chef, but also on the skills and training of the sommelier, the kitchen staff, the wait staff, etc.: it’s not just how well the food is prepared, but how well it’s paired up with suitable beverage, how quickly it’s brought to the table, etc., that can truly make or break a dish. As consumers, we typically don’t witness the coordination required for that vision to get brought to the table.
But it fully makes sense that the restaurant business would have the same dynamics as any other business: you have good people, they bring in other good people and produce the best product that they damn well can. And when they move on to a new establishment, they do the same. It’s training, dedication and passion which defines the experience one has when dining… and that in part is inherent within one’s personality, and can in part be passed down from one master chef to another. It’s inevitable that the spectre of nepotism and profiteerism may loom any time one’s connections help you attain status… but most often – at least when it comes to someone whose livelihood depends on their word, it would be foolish to allow that spectre to take hold (unless, of course, you’re a politician – then all bets are off).
Hubba, hubba, hubba! Money, money, money! Who do you trust? (Trained professionals vs. the musings of the masses)
What I find most entertaining, however, is that one commenter actually states they’ve grown so fatigued with MB’s reviews that they’ve instead turned to Yelp as a more reliable gauge of quality.
As much as [Michael Bauer's] descriptive writings amuse me I’ve stopped relying on him for advice. His palette is his single opinion, I’ve found it at times to not agree with mine. I’ve switched to Yelp (As defective and as ill-repute as it may be) I find comfort in the bell curve that forms from the voice of the masses.” – markybecker
To say it plainly: a review can only be as insightful as the reviewer. Yes, there may be a bell curve at play… but what makes one think that those within one standard deviation have a more similar palate to those reviewing on Yelp, any more than one professional reviewer or another? At this point, it takes far more time to identify trusted reviewers amongst the noise on Yelp than it would to identify a professional reviewer or group of food bloggers with whom you tend to agree.
And the assumption that Yelp reviewers aren’t engaged in writing skewed reviews is flawed. Aside from the users who purportedly offer to write good reviews or threaten bad ones in exchange for freebies, the whole premise of the Yelp Elite parties is to provide publicity for the restaurant and liquor companies supplying the partygoers with complimentary food and drink. And it works: the spike in favorable reviews both for the establishment and for the party the day following the elite event the events clearly indicate that it works.
Not to say that all Yelpers are off. I still have friends are among the few who truly write good reviews on yelp (forgiving the occasional drunken review… which sometimes still stand above the rest). They are among the few yelpers, elite or not ,who write not to simply to get attention, extort freebies, or to get laid ,but to share their knowledge and experiences with the world.
My rule of thumb when deciding to write a review or not: don’t write a review until you have been to an establishment at least 3 times, unless management blatantly fabricated where their ingredients were sourced from, or if the experience was simply so horrific that you couldn’t justify spending any more cash on the place. In most cases, to be useful, reviews should provide an overall picture of the true quality of the establishment, not just a single experience on one visit.
To be quite honest, many of those who review a establishment based solely on their experience at an Elite party (with no intention of ever returning) are only giving favorable reviews in hopes that they would be let into the next “elite” event, trading 5 stars for free alcohol… not truly for the establishment itself. In my opinion, a policy of encouraging that veiled ‘nepotism,’ ‘cronyism,’ or ‘any other kind of -ism’ is a far greater transgression than praise from a reviewer who may have known ties to an establishment, and seriously undermines the value of Yelp as a source of unbiased information.
SF vs The Rest of the Bay Area and MB is discriminating against “x” ethnic group (scope of the top 100)
- Why are there only 3 South Bay restaurants in the top 100?
- Why does the East Bay get more love?
- Why are there only 3 Chinese restaurants in the list when 50% of the Bay area is Chinese (really, it’s more like 20 %… but anyway…)
- Indicate a relative ranking: it would shoot down a whole slew of arguments tossed out in the comments section.
- Perhaps it’s time to produce sister surveys for the best of the North Bay, South Bay and East Bay. Perhaps not the top 100… but top 25, top 30, top 50 – and perhaps calling out which ones make it into the Bay Area top 100 would provide some well-needed perspective to those who see fit to toss their opinions into the mix.
- Breaking ratings down by cuisine beyond the top 100: top 20 Chinese (even better: break it out by region!), top, uh, 3 BBQ, and top… 1 deep dish pizza joint in the Bay Area. ‘Cause sometimes there just isn’t anywhere around that really brings it. And to be perfectly honest, when I’ve got a craving, it’s usually for Thai, Greek, Burmese, or another specific cuisine or dish. I’d love to see lists that address those dilemmas from a trained professional that I could compare to my experiences moreso than generic lists which contain a single establishment.
- Personally, I’d love to see an list of rankings based on quality:price point. I’m not cheap, but I’d like to maximize my dining dollar, so I don’t like to waste money on the good at the cost of the fantastic.
So, the biggest bone I have to pick with the reviewing process is that there’s no transparency in the ranking of the restaurants included in the list. While some were removed to allow the new additions, there is no indication of shifts in quality from year to year. In some ways, the list resembles a Katamari more than a useful tool for assessing one’s dining options, e.g., indiscriminately picking up and losing things.
Sure, I know that one’s opinion of food is subjective. But there’s still a matter of preference involved. You can’t tell me that House of Prime Rib ranks the same as Ad Hoc. But with the way the list is laid out at this point, I can’t tell the difference.
Here are some suggestions to increase the transparency of food ratings to the common reader:
So, in the meantime, until I see these things happening elsewhere on the professional circuit, I suppose I’ll step up and take on the challenge. But regardless, when it comes to anyone else’s opinions on food, no matter how similar your palates, realize that sometimes you’ll disagree… because what you enjoy when it comes to food truly is a matter of taste.
View the comments here.
No related posts.
Recent Comments