Are you qualified??

Ok everyone. After the hoopla after my first blog, I want to start off by saying I am not attacking anyone on an individual level, I promise…

There has been a lot of talk in the past few months mostly in blogs and comments to them about the role of journalists / publicists / chefs & owners and how all of these increasingly complex relationships affect all of us.

I want to write from my perspective and also ask all of your thoughts on the issue, and I was inspired to write about this because first; a bad review we got from a small publication, and second; the few new blogs about this that have popped up in the last couple of days.

What is that makes a person qualified to judge a restaurant? The old answer was a newspaper or magazines integrity and reputation, the new answer is quite possibly not a whole hell of a lot.

As a chef we can tell when a review is written by a person of knowledge and a solid understanding of cuisine, wine and proper service. When a review is written with only one visit to a restaurant, at only one of its serving times, it will always, always suffer from a lack of perspective and experience. Every serious reviewer that takes their job with the importance the establishments deserve will visit the restaurant 2-3-4 times, over a course of weeks or months. This helps gain a complete picture of the restaurants quality and how they operate, and allows the reviewer to inform their readers of the level of quality. This doesn’t seem like rocket science to me, but we will be judged and written about by people that do not adhere to any such guidelines.

I also feel the person reviewing has to have some sort of serious, long-term, well educated basis from which to judge quality of food, wine, presentation, décor and service. This too seems to be something we do not question or demand enough of, although it does seem to be making a small turn in a better direction. But, this turn is dampened by the ever increasing rise of “everyone with a comment should be listened to”. Guess what, not everyone should be listened to. Some people that write about things that do not have a proper point of reference should just stay out of the way.

Guys like Michael Nagrant and David Hammond get it, they are smart, focused, and have a serious sense of not only what is high quality, but what their readers are looking to learn about. In my best attempt to be un-biased, I picked these two because they have not formally reviewed my place, and I honestly enjoy reading them and what they have to say.

I have small sense to just stop here and shut up, but this blog is supposed to be open and honest, even if I piss someone off, or a lot of someones.

Now about our reviews. We have been treated very well by just about all of the press, and with every possible scrap of honesty, I am sincerely grateful. We rely on positive feedback to bring our customers to us because of our far out local, and the positive press helps immensely.

I not only don’t mind honest feedback and criticism, I encourage it, even enjoy it sometimes. When we first opened our cuisine was good, but was not at the level I was used to, and I had a few people call me out on it. I had not run a restaurant, or cooked in one in almost 2 years, and it showed a little. I got re-focused and got our act together, in about a week we were back on track and have gotten a little better every week since.

However, I can not respect a reviewer who makes mistakes on ingredients, or entire dishes for that matter, or one who writes on a single visit and fails to mention all of the other important aspects of a visit to a restaurant. One of the things that worries me is if a person who judges our restaurant thinks we are expensive and says so, from what perspective are they able to accurately judge our food or service.

We are not expensive, not even close. I have customers tell me all of the time we will not make it at what we charge for our level of food and service. I have chef friends tell me what we charge is inherently impossible to sustain, businesspeople that say the same thing, and even journalists I have met remark how surprised they are at what we get for our food and wine.

I am not trying to be self-indulgent here, but the rise of new media, and with more and more choices to get information from, how does a customer form an accurate opinion if just anyone with a keyboard can get listened to? I would love to hear all of your opinions and feedback, either here, or to john@inovasi.us

I'd love to read this recent negative review writen by an unqualified "anyone," so can you tell us what the publication is?

JohndesRosiers wrote: not only don’t mind honest feedback and criticism, I encourage it, even enjoy it sometimes

Cool, here you go then: shorter posts, more white space. This one's really tough on the eyes.

LTH,

For those not playing the LTHForum home game quite that close, John des Rosiers is chef/owner of Inovasi in Lake Bluff. The blog hoopla he refers to may be found -->here

Regards,
Gary

Inovasi Restaurant
28 E Center Ave # Ll
Lake Bluff, IL 60044-2585
847-295-1000
http://www.inovasi.us

Someone doesn't need to have insider access to the Bears locker room to call the season a disappointment. Nor does someone need an exclusive interview with James Cameron to opine that Avatar is just a trumped up ripoff of Dances with Wolves. There is a level of detailed analysis an expert in a field can provide stemming from both their access and expertise, but there's value to everyone's opinion. Most people can tell if the person who writes an article is an expert or a blow hard or just a normal guy taking the time to state an opinion.

Kennyz wrote:I'd love to read this recent negative review writen by an unqualified "anyone," so can you tell us what the publication is?

http://makeitbetter.net/dining/mib-restaurant-guide/restaurant/848-inovasi

JohndesRosiers wrote: not only don’t mind honest feedback and criticism, I encourage it, even enjoy it sometimes

Cool, here you go then: shorter posts, more white space. This one's really tough on the eyes.

point taken, and revised. sorry about that.

JohndesRosiers wrote:As a chef we can tell when a review is written by a person of knowledge and a solid understanding of cuisine, wine and proper service. When a review is written with only one visit to a restaurant, at only one of its serving times, it will always, always suffer from a lack of perspective and experience.

True! But...

JohndesRosiers wrote:Every serious reviewer that takes their job with the importance the establishments deserve will visit the restaurant 2-3-4 times, over a course of weeks or months. This helps gain a complete picture of the restaurants quality and how they operate, and allows the reviewer to inform their readers of the level of quality. This doesn’t seem like rocket science to me, but we will be judged and written about by people that do not adhere to any such guidelines.

Exactly. Just the same as you are judged by every single person who walks through the doors of your restaurant.

I understand where you're coming from, John, and I sympathize. It has to be incredibly frustrating to see something posted online and think to yourself that that person must've caught a bad night or obviously has no idea what s/he is talking about. But the mistake you make is to assume that online criticism -- blogging, posting, discussion -- works the same way as traditional mainstream media criticism. It doesn't. Do you demand that every customer who tries your restaurant come multiple times before saying to their friends whether they liked it or not? Of course you don't. People visit, they have opinions, and word of mouth has always been a part of the restaurant/diner dynamic. All that has happened is that that conversation to which you previously weren't a party has gone online. If a friend of yours says, "Hey, John, I went to restaurant X and it was terrible," what do you do? You weigh how much you trust that person's word based on what they've said about other restaurants. You consider the circumstances of their visit. Maybe you conclude that you wouldn't let that person influence you at all, because you'd just have to visit for yourself. If a total stranger walks up to you on the street and says, "Hey, whatever you do, don't go there... it sucks." Do you assume he knows what he's talking about and avoid it? Of course not.

What makes you think online discussion and reviews are any different?

When you act as though some ignorant diner who catches an off night is going to sink your business, you demonstrate how little you know about how restaurant criticism on the internet works. Let's say you have a great restaurant and somebody comes in and either can't recognize its awesomeness or happened to catch a bad night. For every person like that who posts, there will be twenty others who will post and say, "That guy doesn't know what he's talking about... this restaurant is great." In this way, online criticism actually creates a more balanced perspective, and a larger reviewing sample. You're no longer a slave to a powerful local critic whose tastes simply don't run towards your style. You never have to worry about somebody writing for a paper, getting a bad impression and torpedoing your restaurant. The only restaurants that have anything to fear from online criticism are lousy ones, because they can't hope to pull the wool over a critic's eyes for a couple of meals. They can't hope to identify that critic and make sure nothing goes wrong. With online criticism, you're less likely to be misrepresented to the public simply because of the sheer volume of people who are writing about you.

JohndesRosiers wrote:I also feel the person reviewing has to have some sort of serious, long-term, well educated basis from which to judge quality of food, wine, presentation, décor and service. This too seems to be something we do not question or demand enough of, although it does seem to be making a small turn in a better direction. But, this turn is dampened by the ever increasing rise of “everyone with a comment should be listened to”. Guess what, not everyone should be listened to. Some people that write about things that do not have a proper point of reference should just stay out of the way.

I get frustrated by people who don't know what they're talking about too, but post on the door of your restaurant that customers who don't know what they're talking about should shut the hell up and not talk about your restaurant to their friends after they leave, and see how well that goes over. You chose a service industry, and everybody -- even those who have no idea what they're talking about -- will talk about your food, online and everywhere else. It's part of the package and if you didn't know that when you got into the business, you should have. Deal with it or find a new job.

JohndesRosiers wrote:Guys like Michael Nagrant and David Hammond get it, they are smart, focused, and have a serious sense of not only what is high quality, but what their readers are looking to learn about. In my best attempt to be un-biased, I picked these two because they have not formally reviewed my place, and I honestly enjoy reading them and what they have to say.

Interesting you pick them -- I'll wait for them to jump in, but they both post about places after having only visited once all the time, I believe.

I could write about the rest, but I think I addressed it all above. The bottom line is that you can't treat an individual online review as though it exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. It's one of tens, hundreds or thousands. The people who are reading them know that, even if you don't acknowledge it.

turkob wrote:Someone doesn't need to have insider access to the Bears locker room to call the season a disappointment. Nor does someone need an exclusive interview with James Cameron to opine that Avatar is just a trumped up ripoff of Dances with Wolves. There is a level of detailed analysis an expert in a field can provide stemming from both their access and expertise, but there's value to everyone's opinion. Most people can tell if the person who writes an article is an expert or a blow hard or just a normal guy taking the time to state an opinion.

Sorry, everyone's opinion is not valuable. A person who cooks burnt, way beyond well done pork chops, then proceeds to tell us we do not know how to cook meat properly does not have a valuable opinion. It's not that sometime people say things like, "I didnt enjoy that", or "that was not for me". Those comments are never an issue, as the relate directly to personal taste.

It becomes unnerving when we are told this was not done correctly, when in fact in just about every case it was. It only really affects us when a reviewer or customer who posts something online takes this point of view. If a reviewer does not have an understanding of cuisine, some point of reference, and knowledge of proper service, wine, cocktails, then you have no buisness saying that a restaurant just screwed everything up.

Pointing out the piece you are concerned about might help.

It's kind of a consider the source sort of thing. If I'm reading a review vs an opinion piece, my expectations are different. Maybe some folks writing up their opinions aren't distinguishing that from a review? I don't necessarily go to LTH or Yelp or whatever to get the same sort of writing I expect from a newspaper or magazine, but I like hearing what a lot of people think, and knowing some of them, can get a sense of whether or not I'll like the place. On the other hand, I'm not always quite sure when I read some of the blogs associated with TOC, the Reader, New City, Trib, etc. if I'm getting a review or an opinion.

Dmnkly wrote:I get frustrated by people who don't know what they're talking about too, but post on the door of your restaurant that customers who don't know what they're talking about should shut the hell up and not talk about your restaurant to their friends after they leave, and see how well that goes over. You chose a service industry, and everybody -- even those who have no idea what they're talking about -- will talk about your food, online and everywhere else. It's part of the package and if you didn't know that when you got into the business, you should have. Deal with it or find a new job.

Dmnkly wrote:It's part of the package and if you didn't know that when you got into the business, you should have. Deal with it or find a new job.

Fair points Dom. I understand exactly what my industry is like and generally have no issues with all of the varying components of what happens in restaurants. But, why can't I raise the question? Why can't I question and evaluate the people that judge us on a professional level? Isn't that part of the increase in communication between chefs/writers/bloggers. etc.?

I was actually just thinking about this not in terms of food, but in terms of theater. My background is theatrical, and for several years after college (fairly many, actually, considering) I worked in theatre one way or another. A common thread in places I worked: if the show wasn't successful, to a one, everyone involved in the show blamed the audience. In general the theme was something like this "if we had the kind of sophisticated audience who could understand the scope of this kind of theater..blah, blah, blah." Critics were often blamed as well. I recently saw a show in downtown Chicago, and I could just imagine that this was the kind of talk going on backstage; many of the seats were empty. While it's true that not every show is for every audience, knowing and serving your audience is perhaps the most important consideration in live theatre: otherwise, why bother to do it?

It must be disconcerting for anyone who works with the public to have to hear what they really have to say - but they say it, whether or not it's public. It doesn't matter what their qualifications are, or how many times they ate, or whether you're being judged on an off day. They still eat and talk, just as they (or maybe I should say we) have always done. The difference that I think Chef desRosiers is concerned about is that we (just plain old unqualified people/customers) are now doing it in a public forum. I can't think of it as being anything other than a benefit to someone who works with the public to have this discourse out in the open, rather than wondering why so many of their seats are empty. - and if your seats aren't empty, what's the problem?

Kennyz wrote:I'd love to read this recent negative review writen by an unqualified "anyone," so can you tell us what the publication is?

JohndesRosiers wrote:http://makeitbetter.net/dining/mib-restaurant-guide/restaurant/848-inovasi

OK, so it's a mixed review. Invite her back for dinner, on the house.

And while you may not agree with her, and think she's an unqualified reviewer, she certainly seems to have a culinary background:
http://makeitbetter.net/component/contact/45-authors/7

JohndesRosiers wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:I get frustrated by people who don't know what they're talking about too, but post on the door of your restaurant that customers who don't know what they're talking about should shut the hell up and not talk about your restaurant to their friends after they leave, and see how well that goes over. You chose a service industry, and everybody -- even those who have no idea what they're talking about -- will talk about your food, online and everywhere else. It's part of the package and if you didn't know that when you got into the business, you should have. Deal with it or find a new job.

Dmnkly wrote:It's part of the package and if you didn't know that when you got into the business, you should have. Deal with it or find a new job.

Fair points Dom. I understand exactly what my industry is like and generally have no issues with all of the varying components of what happens in restaurants. But, why can't I raise the question? Why can't I question and evaluate the people that judge us on a professional level? Isn't that part of the increase in communication between chefs/writers/bloggers. etc.?

There's a difference between raising questions about somebody's knowledge, or suggesting that whether or not they know what they're talking about should be considered, and whether or not they should be saying anything in the first place. They're very different things. On the former, I absolutely agree. One of the first things I do when I read something interesting about a restaurant that interests me is I pull up that person's previous posts and see what they think about some other restaurants with which I'm very familiar. Perhaps not all readers go to that length, but many do, and I think few simply accept them at face value. In other words, if what you're saying is that readers of online reviews should be more discerning, I agree, except I think they're far more discerning than you give them credit for. If you're suggesting that somehow somebody doesn't have a right to say whether or not they liked your restaurant, I think you're full of it. I doubt you hesitate to express your opinions to whoever you happen to be talking to about movies, music, sports teams, any number of things about which you may or may not know what you're talking about. Why should it be any different for your customers?

Which circles back to the first part of what I posted, which you didn't address. How is this any different than how it's always been? People have always talked about restaurants. They've always told their friends to go here, or don't go there. They've always talked to their friends, chatted at parties, and wasted time around the water cooler saying go here, or don't go there. And they've always had varying degrees of knowledge about what they just ate. The only difference is that now you can see it.

leek wrote:I like hearing what a lot of people think, and knowing some of them, can get a sense of whether or not I'll like the place. On the other hand, I'm not always quite sure when I read some of the blogs associated with TOC, the Reader, New City, Trib, etc. if I'm getting a review or an opinion.

With respect to our professional journalists, I long for the day when discoveries and insights don't have to be retranscribed to shiny blogs and print media in order to be seen as qualified or impactful. To my mind, the LTH paradigm has us headed in the right direction, which is a democratic one; everyone has the right to an opinion, and the expression of those opinions only improves by exposure to other writing and experiences. I trust the people with whom I grow. Opinions and qualifications are best judged in context, and that's what we have in spades, much moreso than in traditional media.

What's more, John, what you're saying seems predicated upon the idea that all educated critics, by virtue of their knowledge, will reach the same "correct" conclusion about a restaurant. But that's certainly not the case. Even educated and experienced critics can and do disagree about a restaurant's virtues. Educated opinions are still that... opinions.

who cooks burnt, way beyond well done pork chops, then proceeds to tell us we do not know how to cook meat properly does not have a valuable opinion

not being a smart ass....really want to know

did you have a burnt, way beyond well done pork chop cooked by the reviewer?

otherwise, woud like to understand this comment

G Wiv wrote:LTH,

For those not playing the LTHForum home game quite that close, John des Rosiers is chef/owner of Inovasi in Lake Bluff. The blog hoopla he refers to may be found -->here

Regards,
Gary

Inovasi Restaurant
28 E Center Ave # Ll
Lake Bluff, IL 60044-2585
847-295-1000
http://www.inovasi.us

thanks Gary, I had no idea who this guy is/was, kind of odd he assumed folks would imho.

To the OP:

I have a blog, and i post my opinions on restaurants there, I also post about my cooking. it is what it is. Food is a hobby, not how I pay the bills.

I also give my opinion of restaurants on LTH, take em or leave em',

As for who is and isnt qualified, I wont debate that. Like most things in life, if you put yourself out there you need to take the good with the bad, and have thick skin, and not be hyper-sensitive. Kind of bad form in my opinion to come on here and lament over a bad review & presume to decide who can and cant have an opinion on a restaurant.

Good luck to you, I doubt I would have ever made it up to your restaurant before, and almost 100% certain i wont be going now.

auxen1 wrote:

who cooks burnt, way beyond well done pork chops, then proceeds to tell us we do not know how to cook meat properly does not have a valuable opinion

not being a smart ass....really want to know

did you have a burnt, way beyond well done pork chop cooked by the reviewer?

otherwise, woud like to understand this comment

And, per my earlier post - do you view yourself as someone who has supreme knowledge on how pork chops are to be cooked, or as someone with the skills to cook pork chops to satisfy any customer? If you are the former, I can see where you'd want a specific sort of critic - but I don't see you as having a very successful restaurant. (caveat - I know nothing at all about the actual restaurant in question, so please don't take this statement that way.)

Santander wrote:

leek wrote:I like hearing what a lot of people think, and knowing some of them, can get a sense of whether or not I'll like the place. On the other hand, I'm not always quite sure when I read some of the blogs associated with TOC, the Reader, New City, Trib, etc. if I'm getting a review or an opinion.

With respect to our professional journalists, I long for the day when discoveries and insights don't have to be retranscribed to shiny blogs and print media in order to be seen as qualified or impactful. To my mind, the LTH paradigm has us headed in the right direction, which is a democratic one; everyone has the right to an opinion, and the expression of those opinions only improves by exposure to other writing and experiences. I trust the people with whom I grow. Opinions and qualifications are best judged in context, and that's what we have in spades, much moreso than in traditional media.

I'm not saying anything has to be in a "shiny blog" or "print media" to be legitimate. But there is a difference between a review, where you go to the restaurant several times, anonymously, etc etc and an opinion piece. I'm fine with both, but I would like to know what I am getting.

I think the OP's original gripe was more that this person's piece was an opinion based on one visit, not a review, but dressed up as a review. It's kind of hard to tell what the site is going for, but they do call them reviews.

JohndesRosiers wrote: One of the things that worries me is if a person who judges our restaurant thinks we are expensive and says so, from what perspective are they able to accurately judge our food or service.

Not sure if this remark is directed at the "Make It Better"/Julie Chernoff piece, but she mentioned several times that prices were quite reasonable. For what you serve and the area you are in, I agree with her.

If I were in the Lake Bluff area (sadly, that does not happen often), I'd certainly try Innovasi, and also post on it here, even though the only culinary training/experience you and I share is working on a salad station.

leek wrote:

Santander wrote:

leek wrote:I like hearing what a lot of people think, and knowing some of them, can get a sense of whether or not I'll like the place. On the other hand, I'm not always quite sure when I read some of the blogs associated with TOC, the Reader, New City, Trib, etc. if I'm getting a review or an opinion.

With respect to our professional journalists, I long for the day when discoveries and insights don't have to be retranscribed to shiny blogs and print media in order to be seen as qualified or impactful. To my mind, the LTH paradigm has us headed in the right direction, which is a democratic one; everyone has the right to an opinion, and the expression of those opinions only improves by exposure to other writing and experiences. I trust the people with whom I grow. Opinions and qualifications are best judged in context, and that's what we have in spades, much moreso than in traditional media.

I'm not saying anything has to be in a "shiny blog" or "print media" to be legitimate. But there is a difference between a review, where you go to the restaurant several times, anonymously, etc etc and an opinion piece. I'm fine with both, but I would like to know what I am getting.

I think the OP's original gripe was more that this person's piece was an opinion based on one visit, not a review, but dressed up as a review. It's kind of hard to tell what the site is going for, but they do call them reviews.

Aye; regrets for roping your quote into the tangent, but I thought it (your reaction) was a good one, and responded in part to how many times John uses "journalist," "serious," "media," etc. in the OP, without ever putting his finger on what the problem was. I think it's important to note that he is reacting to an unpublished (by traditional standards) web review, in our web forum; we don't speak for the internet, or more specifically unaffiliated culinary bloggers, but it often goes unanalyzed that our reviews get funneled right into the mainstream, where they lose any context.

And that's my answer to "how does a customer form an accurate opinion if just anyone with a keyboard can get listened to?"

Context. "Old" media journalists are also just people with keyboards. The "new" media audience - a large percentage of Inovasi's potential customers - is savvy enough to look at the profile of the reviewers, previous posts, reactions by other discussion participants, general repute. This is easier to find for online reviewers than offline. Whole sites (Yelp, etc.) are designed so you see review counts and "rep" front and center. Biographies are linked from almost every blog. Ironically - or perhaps not - the web is less forgiving of writers than most traditional media editors. My advice is to trust your customers in their listening and reading patterns. They know how to weigh qualifications.

Mhays wrote:It must be disconcerting for anyone who works with the public to have to hear what they really have to say - but they say it, whether or not it's public. It doesn't matter what their qualifications are, or how many times they ate, or whether you're being judged on an off day. They still eat and talk, just as they (or maybe I should say we) have always done. The difference that I think Chef desRosiers is concerned about is that we (just plain old unqualified people/customers) are now doing it in a public forum. I can't think of it as being anything other than a benefit to someone who works with the public to have this discourse out in the open, rather than wondering why so many of their seats are empty. - and if your seats aren't empty, what's the problem?

I agree with your post completely.

My background was always in hospital food service. The company that I worked for required quarterly cafeteria surveys, client surveys and in many institutions, detailed patient satisfaction surveys. Most people were brutally honest which gave us a lot of feedback and helped us identify problems that we were not aware of. Let's face it. The average person cannot evaluate the physicians and the medical staff but they definitely know if they liked or disliked the food.

If I am shelling out my hard earned dollars to eat out, I believe that I should be able to publish my opinion of the meal in a public place. I may not have a certificate from the CIA or thirty years experience in a kitchen, but I can certainly differentiate between efficient and effective service and the indifferent service that I might encounter.

After posting and reading perhaps one half million posts on various travel/food/hospitality websites, I find it pretty easy to identify when a person has had a LEGITIMATE issue or whether they have an ax to grind. And in general, you can pretty much tell a person's background after ten or twenty posts.

Personally, I am really tired of the "OFF DAY" in the kitchen excuse. As a professional, you are there to make sure that there are no "off days." As a person who is far more likely to eat out Monday-Thursday than on the weekend, I am tired of being asked to pay the same money as weekend diners and receiving "off day" performances. What I have NEVER understood recently is that the slower the night, the worse the service I receive.

End of rant.

I have a mouth. I have an appetite. I have a wallet. I am a customer, not necessarily a gastronome, but eating is an old and bad habit I learned many years ago at my mother's breast. You bet yer bain marie I'm qualified!

Dmnkly wrote:

JohndesRosiers wrote:Guys like Michael Nagrant and David Hammond get it, they are smart, focused, and have a serious sense of not only what is high quality, but what their readers are looking to learn about. In my best attempt to be un-biased, I picked these two because they have not formally reviewed my place, and I honestly enjoy reading them and what they have to say.

Interesting you pick them -- I'll wait for them to jump in, but they both post about places after having only visited once all the time, I believe.

Sometimes, the way I’m connected to LTHForum.com frightens me. About 1:40PM yesterday, when the OP went up, I was walking out the door, headed to the gym, and without seeing this post, the thought popped into my head, “Am I being fair, reviewing places after just one visit?”

The answer is Maybe.

Whenever I can, I visit a restaurant I’m reviewing for a publication more than once (most recently, for The Reader, I went to Big Star a few times before I wrote the review that was published yesterday). Other times, when I review a place, I’m usually covered by the publication for two dinners, so The Wife and I go, and we get a bunch of stuff, and we eat it and talk about it, just like all the other good folks who post on LTHForum. If I went more than once, I would maybe have a deeper understanding of the place.

Maybe.

In the past year, I’ve become well acquainted with pretty much everything written by Malcolm Gladwell, who in Blink discusses “thin slicing,” which is kind of a snap judgment but is more like an intuitive, sharp and valid opinion of a larger phenomenon based on limited experience, insight that comes in a blink, like a cop who stops a malefactor without any more information than a passing glance at him, or an art critic who can tell in a flash, without analysis, that an alleged masterpiece is a fake.

I’m not saying that I or any other critics can assess excellence in the thin slice offered by one meal, but it is possible, and a trained person can find out a lot based on limited experience of the place.

JohndesRosiers wrote:how does a customer form an accurate opinion if just anyone with a keyboard can get listened to?

Everyone is or can be a critic. Not everyone is a trustworthy critic, but as Dom points out, trust is earned when over time people prove to be trustworthy. Word-of-mouth is usually considered the best kind of marketing, and LTH simply provides a platform for continuing and vibrant word-of-mouth recommendations. As you would with advice from reliable or unreliable friends, you take or leave what you hear here based on what you know about the reviewer.

My feeling is that chefs, like many artists, tend to take negative criticisms to heart and give them weight all out of proportion to their actual value.

Santander wrote:To my mind, the LTH paradigm has us headed in the right direction, which is a democratic one; everyone has the right to an opinion, and the expression of those opinions only improves by exposure to other writing and experiences. I trust the people with whom I grow. Opinions and qualifications are best judged in context, and that's what we have in spades, much moreso than in traditional media.

Good stuff, Matt, and I think it’s true that those who grow with this community gain the most from the insights here, accepting some, rejecting others based on the history of posters and the community.

jimswside wrote:Like most things in life, if you put yourself out there you need to take the good with the bad, and have thick skin, and not be hyper-sensitive.

Fine advice for anyone posting on LTH, too. I joke that I’ve seen long-time LTH friendships explode based on disagreements about the disposition of condiments on a Chicago hot dog, and figuratively that’s true. I think a big part of growing with this community is taking criticism and correction when it’s offered in good spirits, because we’re all basically after the same thing: something good to eat.

jlawrence01 wrote:Personally, I am really tired of the "OFF DAY" in the kitchen excuse. As a professional, you are there to make sure that there are no "off days."

So true…and yet, there is such thing as an off day. It may be a lousy excuse, but it does exist. Even a great restaurant will have bad days, but if it’s really a great place, then those off days will be few.

Dmnkly wrote:I understand where you're coming from, John, and I sympathize. It has to be incredibly frustrating to see something posted online and think to yourself that that person must've caught a bad night or obviously has no idea what s/he is talking about. But the mistake you make is to assume that online criticism -- blogging, posting, discussion -- works the same way as traditional mainstream media criticism. It doesn't.

To benefit from online criticism, and to understand who to trust and who to regard skeptically, you have to acculturate yourself in the community. The problem, and this I think gets to the heart of Chef des Rosiers’ concern, is that many people who read LTH, or Yelp, or whatever, do not take the time to understand who can be trusted and who cannot be trusted – they do, unfortunately, read “in a vacuum,” they don’t become a part of the community of thought, don’t know who to trust and who not to trust, and so may come to conclusions about a restaurant based on an unreliable post…and I think we have to admit that such posts do exist.

Regarding the particular review that prompted the Chef to start this thread, I do think it's a bit of an odd one. She describes about an even mix of really good dishes and dishes she didn't care for, then gives the restaurant the lowest possible star rating. Strange.

In describing the Milanese white risotto flavored with fresh tarragon, goat cheese and roasted hazelnuts, she says "We sent it back since it tasted like goat cheese-flavored rice pudding with a medicinal tang." I dunno, goat cheese flavored rice pudding with a medicinal tang sounds pretty darn tasty to me. To each her own.

Dmnkly wrote:the mistake you make is to assume that online criticism -- blogging, posting, discussion -- works the same way as traditional mainstream media criticism. It doesn't.

This quote strikes a cord because it reminds me of something that has bothered me lately. Mainstream media is dead. Gone. Kaput. A fully decayed cadaver. At least when it comes to restaurant reviews. "Mainstream" reviews are all available online now, and more people read them that way than in print. The reviews written by Vettel, Hammond, Nagrant, Sula are just longer-than-average and better written "posts" that get blended into the vast Yelp, LTHForum, Diningdiva, and Menupages opinionsphere. None of that bothers me in the slightest, but I do wish the pretense of there being traditional media would end. Media outlets and there writers should stop maintaining "blogs" that are separate from their "articles". When Phil Vettel posts a review on a ridiculously named site called "leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com," does he seriously think that review is somehow different than the ones available on "chicagotribune.com/entertainment"? Ditto when Sula posts on "chicagoreader.com/TheBlog" instead of writing a review that appears in "www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/food-and-drink/". In the real world, it's all the same stuff: a review by Mike Sula or Phil Vettel, but these fine writers (and lots of others) seem to maintain a different standard of thoroughness, editing, etc. when their posts appear under one of these web addresses vs. the other. I wish they'd stop pretending.

What is that makes a person qualified to judge a restaurant?

they have a mouth, money to buy your food, and an internet connection.

seriously, that's it. everyone's a critic--it's always been that way--it's just that the internet spreads the word of mouth more quickly.

Why can't I question and evaluate the people that judge us on a professional level?

you can, but it makes you come off as petty and insecure. the best thing you can do is remember that readers are also questioning and evaluating the new "critics". it's not like 15 years ago, when there were 2-3 restaurant critics and everyone more or less gave their pronouncements a lot of credibility.

today's diners/readers are far more savvy. they understand the difference between an anonymous starred review by a newspaper writer, a hit and run blogger review, and a puff piece for some glitzy vehicle for high-end advertising.

what most people that read this kind of stuff more broadly do, I've found, is find a blogger or reviewer who they tend to agree with, and then give that person's opinion more weight.

how does a customer form an accurate opinion if just anyone with a keyboard can get listened to?

all opinions (at least all that convey an accurate representation of what the person thinks) are "accurate". they may be based in inaccurate information, but in my opinion, inferring that some opinions are more "accurate" than others is yet another attempt to disqualify some people's thoughts (especially if they don't love everything you do).

lame. best thing you can do is accept that everyone's opinion is valid in that they all have the power to purchase your food or not, the power to tell everyone they know why they should or shouldn't purchase your food, and the power to pepper the internet with their thoughts about why everyone reading should/shouldn't purchase your food.

elakin wrote:

Why can't I question and evaluate the people that judge us on a professional level?

you can, but it makes you come off as petty and insecure.

Our initial vision for LTH was for it to be, in part, a place where it’d be possible to have an easy exchange between chefs and those who eat their food . Problem is, as Edzo points out, that chefs who respond to criticism almost always end up looking defensive.

Among chefs and other “old media” writers I’ve spoken with, LTHForum has a rep for being a “tough crowd.” Maybe that’s a good thing – better that, of course, than a community of nattering empty heads who believe a review should consist mostly of “wow” and “awesome!” and know nothing about the food that’s being discussed (no need to name names here). An overly aggressive response does discourage chefs and other new posters , but even if we were more welcoming to chefs who respond to defend themselves, I’m not sure they could avoid the appearance of being petty and insecure. I’m not comfortable with that conclusion, and there are no doubt ways to finesse a chef’s response so it’d come off better, but it’s very hard, especially for people like chefs (who don’t spend as much time as many of us dueling with words online) to respond in a way that doesn't draw further fire.

Kennyz wrote:I dunno, goat cheese flavored rice pudding with a medicinal tang sounds pretty darn tasty to me. To each her own.

Why not ask your doctor about Puddinex®?









Side effects of Puddinex® are generally mild, and include dry mouth and upset stomach. You should not take Puddinex® if you are lactose intolerant, lactose bigoted, or lactose curious. Do not take Puddinex® if you lack the culinary training to properly evaluate it. In the rare event of an emulsion lasting more than 4 hours, seek immediate medical attention. Hey, why is that middle-aged lady smiling at you like that? She must really love rice pudding, huh?

JohndesRosiers wrote:What is that makes a person qualified to judge a restaurant? The old answer was a newspaper or magazines integrity and reputation, the new answer is quite possibly not a whole hell of a lot.

I can assure you that I am absolutely unqualified. But I'm going to keep writing anyway.

I will now resolve all the questions in this thread in 60 seconds.

If you ate there, you're qualified. If you didn't, you're not. Case closed. If higher qualifications than that are needed to appreciate your food then it's irresponsible to serve customers without proof of their accreditation. Yeah there are a lot of voices out there but nobody gives this or that much credence unless they really know the writer. And even when they do, jeez, I stopped listening to many of the name reviewers when I stopped being the guy with an expense account that they seem to be writing for. That said, one Yelp reviewer is a moron, but ten or a hundred Yelp reviewers produce an average score/viewpoint that contains essential truths about a restaurant, I am convinced. Here, though, that one star rating seems off based on the content; I bet somebody clicked the wrong button. LTH isn't a tough crowd, it's the same crowd who comes in every night, only now you know what they're really thinking when they tell your server everything's fine. Kenny, I don't think the distinction you talk about exists, at least not in the examples you cite-- the online reviews and the published ones are the same, and there's not that much that you could call a review on the actual blog (or in the Tribune's case, there's not much on the blog, period). That said, I have no problem with people tweeting or bleating or flogging their impressions on the fly, that's the way the world works now and we all get that an opening night comment is an opening night comment, your mileage a month from next Tuesday may vary. David, it's okay to write after a single visit on LTH, because odds are, you won't be the only person from LTH to comment. I don't get why people look at something that has incredible advantages over the traditional written-once-for-the-ages review in terms of how it will present new viewpoints over and over, and think that it's somehow deficient compared to a review that won't be updated for a decade. Yes sad to say, I don't know any chef who's come out well of talking about his own food here. Now, somebody else's food, or something else cool you do-- that you could do well here. Michelle, I was about to see Banana Shpeel too, but somehow, I just got the sense... no, does not work.

riddlemay wrote:

JohndesRosiers wrote:What is that makes a person qualified to judge a restaurant? The old answer was a newspaper or magazines integrity and reputation, the new answer is quite possibly not a whole hell of a lot.

I can assure you that I am absolutely unqualified. But I'm going to keep writing anyway.

Exactly. As with so many on-line discussions like this one, it's not about the writer, it's about the reader. People are going to talk (and write) about their experiences . . . just as they always have. It's a given. Let's move on. There are plenty of 'qualfied' food writers -- folks who get paid to do what they do -- who know far less than some of our regular contributors. On that basis, the conduit -- print, electronic, new, old -- is largely irrelevant. The bottom line is that readers must learn for themselves whose opinions they trust and whose are dismissable.

In my opinion, the most productive role for chefs in these discussions should be to cultivate, educate and entertain their audience -- and there are more than a handful in town who have begun to master this. In the public forum, getting their messages out there pro-actively seems like a better investment of time and effort for chefs than reacting (emotionally) to others' messages and individual criticisms. Ultimately, the more the dining public knows about the back of the house and how it operates, the more discerning they will be when reading reviews and the more informed their decisions and criticisms will be, too.

If there is a war going on between misunderstood chefs and the ignorant public, it won't be won in the trenches. Chefs and restaurateurs need to take the high road, focus on the big picture and change the landscape. Anything less is just spitting in the wind.

=R=