BR wrote:

Steve Plotnicki wrote:I'm Jewish so I surrounded myself with investment bankers, accountants, economists and statisticians who oddly enough agree with me about what the statistics mean.

You've got to be kidding me - are you for real? Are you completely unaware of how offensive this remark is? I'm not sure what parts of the 20th and 21st centuries you've missed, but you really need to keep your views to yourself - they're incredibly offensive and I'm embarrassed for you.

Oh Jesus. First of all it's it's in response to Dom's line about Catholics. Second, you obviously do not understand the concept of Jews and self-deprecating humor. Finally, you don't know me at all and you have no idea what I meant when I said that. I happen to be the son of a Holocaust survirvor and I was trying to be ironic. Sorry all of that was lost on you but maybe you should listen and ask before you make accusation s against people.

Thanks Dutch Muse. You get it!

... get a writer and an editor and you're all set.

I kid, I kid. Serious question:

It's clear that your mandate and constituents don't focus on cheap and/or "ethnic" food. (Well, except for sushi. I'm a fan of Yasuda which rates very highly on your list but involves relatively few, albeit high quality, ingredients and techniques. I don't see how it possibly shares bandwith with Alinea and French Laundry under the OA worldview. I wouldn't think that a sushi bar would rank so highly in the dining capital of the Mid Atlantic.) So why have a cheap eats list at all? It looks uneven at best. The greatest hits are surely there, as they might be in something from USAToday. Why have that?

PS, Dino BBQ at 13? It is the best cheap place in Syracuse/Rochester, probably, and I like it, but no way.

JeffB wrote:... get a writer and an editor and you're all set.

I kid, I kid. Serious question:

It's clear that your mandate and constituents don't focus on cheap and/or "ethnic" food. (Well, except for sushi. I'm a fan of Yasuda which rates very highly on your list but involves relatively few, albeit high quality, ingredients and techniques. I don't see how it possibly shares bandwith with Alinea and French Laundry under the OA worldview. I wouldn't think that a sushi bar would rank so highly in the dining capital of the Mid Atlantic.) So why have a cheap eats list at all? It looks uneven at best. The greatest hits are surely there, as they might be in something from USAToday. Why have that?

PS, Dino BBQ at 13? It is the best cheap place in Syracuse/Rochester, probably, and I like it, but no way.

SP keeps pointing to the data - it's the data from people who know what good food is - and filled out his survey because they participate in a high end restaurant's mailing list - and the data can't be wrong because investment bankers and economists looked at it and they are never wrong.

Your comments reflect some of the challenges with acquiring data sets from survey results, especially by surveying a small or narrow population. Throughout this thread, SP notes that the people that were surveyed share the same philosophies on fine dining or good food or whatever, that he does.

The problem I have is a very fundamental issue with experiments - how do you operationally define fine dining or a quality meal or a quality restaurant, or whatever he's trying to define? Second, how would you go about gathering the necessary data to measure said definition. Surveys aren't the best way to gather data but many rely on them in social experiments. The biggest drawback is that they're not reliable. If you gave the same survey to the same person 3 or 4 times, you're likely to get different answers (or data) each time. When was the survey taken? After a fine dining meal (a good experience or a bad experience), before a meal, after a low quality meal, etc. And on and on...

If the operational definition isn't sound (doesn't seem that way here) and the survey results have a lot of deviation (I believe the surveys are weighted to give frequent diners or diners in certain regions higher importance); I believe you have a flawed study. You'll still get data and you can still run numbers and you may feel that those numbers mean something but, again, if they don't pass the smell test - which this doesn't seem to do - you have issues with your formula.

The math and the stats may be reliable within his study - flawed or not but it doesn't mean they're valid.

But this is the problem with any kind of restaurant guide - Zagat's, Michelin, or even the old Roadfood guides of Stern and Stern. They depend upon the sample that evaluates. That could be one person, which means that everything depends on the preferences of that person, his/her mood that night, and the meal that happened to be selected and served (recognizing that restaurants evolve); the rules of the organization for training secret dining evaluators; or the sample. Even if we had a random sample, we would only have the "objective" view of the "average" (or sampled) diner who was willing to participate.

What we often say on this board that every opinion is valid - as a data point. And so it is with guidebooks. OAD is a datapoint, which, yes, relies upon a non-random sample in which opinions are weighed. But we shouldn't believe that in some absolute sense, despite the apparent precision, that Schwa is 96.8 (even though - or because - Steve's reservations are not cancelled ), Avenues is 95.6, Trotter's 94.6, Tru 91.2, Vie 90.0, Sepia 88.5, and so forth. This is what his sample believes, as weighted by the methodology. Like Zagat, like Michelin, like Phil Vettel, like GNRs, like all of us, our evaluations are a result of who is judging and how. These are data points that guide us to restaurants that we just might like.

GAF wrote:But this is the problem with any kind of restaurant guide - Zagat's, Michelin, or even the old Roadfood guides of Stern and Stern. ...What we often say on this board that every opinion is valid - as a data point. And so it is with guidebooks. OAD is a datapoint, which, yes, relies upon a non-random sample in which opinions are weighed. ... These are data points that guide us to restaurants that we just might like.

I totally hear you. OAD is a data point but we should be quick to also note that it is not the absolute data point. Judging by many of the comments, OAD seems to be flawed. Even SP, notes that there are some obvious oversights that weren't included in his guide and doesn't know why - he'll have to look at the data.

I'll lump the OAD in with the rest of the guides you mention and continue to take all of these data points with a generous grain of salt.

Right. Every guide is flawed before it starts. The question is whether it will be relevant for any diner in directing him/her wisely and in suggesting new places to dine.

Those last three posts were each excellent, and let me try to respond to them this way. The guide doesn't put forth a restaurant's score as an absolute measure of its quality. The score is merely a mathematical calculation that is intended to express how an informed community, as I have defined what an informed community is, has expressed themselves about a restaurant. But having said that, I believe there is a stong correlation between that numerical expression and the actualy quality of the restaurant. Sure it's not perfect-no data set is perfect-but I am not looking to solve a mathematical problem. I am trying to apply objectivity to a subject that is often approached subjectively. In that light, while the book doesn't offer every last bit of information that people are looking for, it does offer a hell of a lot of good information. But if you get hung up on whether Schwa is only .6 better than Ubuntu, you aren't using it the right way. The book needs to be seen as a narrative and the question is, does the book express a narrative that (certain) diners will find useful.

As for cheap eats, well they are in the book because no one eats all of their meals at Alinea. People eat pizza, Chinese food, Thai food etc. So the book tackles the subject. It's sort of the icing on the cake in the overall scheme of dining out. Mind you from a personal perspective, I spend a lot of time sampling cheap eats places. In fact I just counted and I have been to 47 out of the top 55 top cheap eats places in the guide. What I find the problem with them is, and I am not the only person who feels this way and the data I collected supports it, is that after the very top places, the dropoff in quality is significant. This is epecially true of barbecue. I sampled numerous barbecue places in the south over the past two years including many that Jane & Michael Stern and other bbq afficianados have been raving about for years. At most of them the food is dreadful with poor quality meat and overcooked barbecue. And while I understand your comment about Dino, we thought it was light years better than a place like Arthur Bryant where the brisket was so dried out we thought we would need to put a hose down our throat just to get it down.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:I am trying to apply objectivity to a subject that is often approached subjectively.

Are you? The data is inherently based on the subjective and will never (could never!) be anything but. Applying a black-box algorithm may make it appear more objective, but it sounds like simple abstraction...

Well this gets back to the debate about what makes for objectivity when it comes to judgments. I believe that enough circumstantial evidence is sufficient to reach a conclusion. The reason I believe that is because that's the way people lead their lives. You can't prove a Mercedes is better than a Volkswagon, unless you impose an agreed upon standard that was arrived at by car buyers agreeing on the circumstantial evidence that creates a standard. Same with determining that Spoon Thai is the best Thai restaurant in Chicago. While you will never be able to prove it, there is a hell of a lot of proof that argues that's it's a reasonable conclusion.

You can objectively conclude that a Mercedes can withstand a greater force in a side-impact than a Volkswagen, or that it has more horsepower or better fuel economy. Whether or not the sum of these various conclusions makes it "better" is subjective. Some objective measures you can use to compare Spoon Thai to other Thai restaurants in Chicago would be things like average dinner check, the size and number of shrimp in an order of curry or the average wait time to be seated or receive delivery. These things seem entirely too pedestrian to be of much interest to your survey respondents/readers, but unless these are the types of "circumstantial evidence" you refer to, your data is entirely subjective. Applying statistical analysis to it doesn't change that fact.

To rephrase, no amount of analytical structure can change subjective opinion into objective fact. If the data upon which the survey is based are subjective, so too are its results, no matter what you do to process the data.

We can show thousands of people a movie, and then poll whether it makes them sad or not. We can break them up by various demographics, we can weight frequent moviegoers more heavily than casual moviegoers, and we can ask them to elaborate on what type of sadness they did or didn't experience, but none of that will determine in an objective fashion whether the movie is sad or not. It may help us to predict whether certain people are or are not more likely to find that movie sad (which I presume is the purpose of your survey), but it cannot determine whether or not that movie is sad because that is subjective observation.

You can make the analyzing structure as objective as possible, so as to glean as much information as you can, but the output will still be as subjective as the input. Which is not to suggest that there isn't value in objectively analyzing subjective data. But you can't change opinion into fact, no matter how many opinions you sample or how you analyze them.

To use your example, if 90% of your respondents feel that Spoon Thai is the best Thai restaurant in Chicago, that certainly suggests that "Spoon Thai is the best Thai restaurant in Chicago" is a reasonable opinion. But it's still an opinion.

Unless you're working under an alternative definition of what constitutes objective and subjective.

I agree with you that a strict definition of the comparison would be a subjective conclusion. But as a practical matter, the world functions as if a Mercedes being better than a Volkswagon is objectively true. So saying that it is really subjective is making a distinction without a difference. What the survey results would show, is that the more dining experience someone has, the more likely they are to abandon trying to make that distinction.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:But as a practical matter, the world functions as if a Mercedes being better than a Volkswagon is objectively true.

Except that this isn't true. The world is filled with people who feel a Volkswagen is better than a Mercedes and, as a practical matter, act as such. Most, I suspect, because they value different things than you do. Some, because they make different judgments than you do. But this statement is simply false.

Dmnkly wrote:

Steve Plotnicki wrote:But as a practical matter, the world functions as if a Mercedes being better than a Volkswagon is objectively true.

Except that this isn't true. The world is filled with people who feel a Volkswagen is better than a Mercedes and, as a practical matter, act as such. Most, I suspect, because they value different things than you do. Some, because they make different judgments than you do. But this statement is simply false.

Yes, there are people who believe that. Stupid people!

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Yes, stupid people feel a Volkswagon is as good as a Mercedes. We agree!

In other words, people who don't share your values and your opinions about what is and isn't important are stupid.

The answer couldn't possibly be that different things are important to them. The answer is obviously that they're just stupid.

I'd ask if you want to retract that one, but I know you won't.

Dom, I think what you mean to suggest is that there are some people who would prefer to own a VW for any number of reasons. But I think that Steve is right to suggest that most of us, whether we own a Mercedes or a VW, feel that in some essential way the former is a better car. Not everyone to be sure, but the "world" (the world that thinks about and judges cars) acts AS IF the comparison is objective.

No people who are overly relatavist to the point of it eliminating standards are stupid. So someone can enjoy driving a Volks more than a Mercedes, but thinking it's a better car because you insist on a subjective standard is just plain dumb.

GAF wrote:But I think that Steve is right to suggest that most of us, whether we own a Mercedes or a VW, feel that in some essential way the former is a better car.

My emphasis, and it's all-important.

Majority does not equal truth.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:No people who are overly relatavist to the point of it eliminating standards are stupid. So someone can enjoy driving a Volks more than a Mercedes, but thinking it's a better car because you insist on a subjective standard is just plain dumb.

Maybe somebody feels a VW is a better value. Maybe somebody feels VW has better style. Maybe somebody is far more comfortable driving a VW.

Again, these are all subjective interpretations, and not wacky, crazy, absurdly unreasonable ones.

I'm on the edge of my seat, anxious to see what scintillating direction this thread will turn next.

Dom your position doesn't make sense. It basically says that if we asked 100 people about the Mercedes/VW comparison, and 98 said Mercedes, that the two people who voted for the VW should have the right to prevent the other 98 from reaching a conclusion. That's just not how the world calibrates itself.

When it comes to judgments, objectivity is determined through circumstantial evidence. That it is a flawed description because it is not as objective as 2=2=4 doesn't matter. Everyone understands that embedded in any judgment is a margin of error. Those 2 people are well within any margin of error.

Let's change the subject. You live in Phoenix right Dom? Ever been to Kai at the Wildhorse Pass Resort?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Dom your position doesn't make sense. It basically says that if we asked 100 people about the Mercedes/VW comparison, and 98 said Mercedes, that the two people who voted for the VW should have the right to prevent the other 98 from reaching a conclusion.

I said no such thing. I said the conclusion of the 98 isn't the truth, nor is it necessarily more objective than that reached by the two.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:That it is a flawed description because it is not as objective as 2=2=4 doesn't matter.

That is completely objective and a different matter entirely.

You know what, forget it. I'm sorry I jumped back in. I thought if I did so in a calm and intelligent manner, there might be a good discussion here, but that obviously isn't possible. Have your last word, Steve. I'm out. I pray I really mean it this time.

You can't define subjective and objective to suit your whim. No amount of "dining experience" changes that.

People who insist that Mercs are inherently better than VWs because everyone says so are the epitome of scenesters. I'd suggest they stay home and watch Top Gear for a bit of education rather than crowd my favorite restaurants. Drive both cars, determine which you prefer. I did, and chose a Volvo over a Merc...head to head. Intelligent minds can differ.

kl1191 wrote:You can't define subjective and objective to suit your whim. No amount of "dining experience" changes that.

Better. If the boring debate over semantics must continue, it should it least be sprinkled with sarcastic little jabs like this one.

I'm inclined to think that the very question of what is subjective and what is objective doesn't matter. What matters is whether the book serves as an enjoyable read, and as a gateway to an increased number of enjoyable restaurant experiences for its readers.

My friend from high school, Michael O'Dowd, is the chef at Kai. Please post here if you plan to "visit" him in the kitchen during service. That would be something I'd enjoy hearing more about.

I agree with your Volvo story. When you are knowledgable about a topic, you are likely to have a more nuanced point of view. For example, I usually hate the highest rated restaurant in Zagat when it comes to the smaller cities in the country. I always find them to be second rate knock-offs of Gramercy Tavern. And there always seems to be a simpler restaurant, likely farm to table, that I prefer eating at. But if I was truly trying to be objective about it, a whole roast lobe of foie gras with a balsamic reduction that is a Gramercy knockoff needs to be considered higher than an original version of ham hocks and black eyed peas. That's because standards are not subjective, and the issue becomes weighing standards versus preferences. In some instances, preferences actually create new standards. In other instance they are merely preferences. In the case of your Volvo, you might have unearthed something other people overlooked.

boudreaulicious - I was at Kai last fall. I thought the place was great and I spent a lot of time talking to Michael (I think it was him and not his sous.) It was a great story as well. I showed up on a Satruday night without a reservation figuring I could eat at the bar. It was one of three places I was going to that night (Elements and Binkley's the others.) Unfortunately they don't have a bar they serve food at and the dining room was full. So I told the hostess why I was there and a manager came out and offered me a seat on the patio where they don't normally serve. Within minutes they organized a table, and they served me this really cool meal using all sorts of ingredients from the reservation they are located on like breads made from seeds and Buffalo raised by the Cheyenne. It was one of my favorite meals in 2010 and I am looking forward to going back.

riddlemay wrote:What matters is whether the book serves as an enjoyable read

My panel of experienced readers ranked its enjoyability coefficient as just below that of passing a massive kidney stone. The statisticians certified this as a fact.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:No people who are overly relatavist to the point of it eliminating standards are stupid. So someone can enjoy driving a Volks more than a Mercedes, but thinking it's a better car because you insist on a subjective standard is just plain dumb.

Good examples of why the humble comma is so important, no?