EatingOutsforSuckers digression

[Mod edit--This was split from the Sepia thread]

How is it so many people think they are professional restaurant reviewers, complete with detailed descriptions of what they "think" might be in the food.

Restaurant dining is random, overpriced entertainment, and your opinion is cancelled out by someone who had precisely the opposite experience at some point.

This place doesn't need to "fine-tune" the details any more than any other joint. It's a solid place, but like most other places in this tier, will have undulations in food and service.

People get so bent out of shape about a bad experience because they think it will be stellar EVERY TIME. It won't. And it shows how much the whole industry is misunderstood by their desire to inflict some pain back with a couple of pointed and nasty "reviews."

A warm hello and welcome to LTH right back at ya, EOFS. Did you perhaps have any thoughts on Sepia?

EatingOutsforSuckers wrote:How is it so many people think they are professional restaurant reviewers, complete with detailed descriptions of what they "think" might be in the food.

Restaurant dining is random, overpriced entertainment, and your opinion is cancelled out by someone who had precisely the opposite experience at some point.

This place doesn't need to "fine-tune" the details any more than any other joint. It's a solid place, but like most other places in this tier, will have undulations in food and service.

People get so bent out of shape about a bad experience because they think it will be stellar EVERY TIME. It won't. And it shows how much the whole industry is misunderstood by their desire to inflict some pain back with a couple of pointed and nasty "reviews."

So why exactly is eating out for suckers, EatingOutIsForSuckers?

Santander wrote:A warm hello and welcome to LTH right back at ya, EOFS. Did you perhaps have any thoughts on Sepia?

It's a gorgeous place with some decent food, some overpriced wine, and a food price range typical of upper-mid tier restaurants. There are lots of these.

My comments are more pertinent to the people who come out here with these ridiculously detailed reviews, often because of a "negative" experience. What they don't understand is that in this business, in terms of execution, is complex and random. It's quite unpredictable. If you want predictable, there are lots of fast food places.

Stop complaining.

Unless you're going to the same place every weekend. Your experience was random. In fact, that very night you dined at "x" place, someone else had completely the opposite experience, and it may have had nothing to do with the restaurant.

Cheers!

EatingOutsforSuckers wrote:My comments are more pertinent to the people who come out here with these ridiculously detailed reviews,

Yeah - on a food-related website no less.
Shame!

EatingOutsforSuckers wrote:Restaurant dining is random, overpriced entertainment, and your opinion is cancelled out by someone who had precisely the opposite experience at some point.

The use of the word overpriced turns your own statement into an opinion, one which I am about to "cancel out" (as you put it).

As food per se, some food in restaurants is "overpriced," if what you mean is "marked up by a large margin." You can defend that as not being opinion but assertion of fact. But as entertainment (which is the word you chose), restaurant dining is not overpriced--by my standards. We enjoy dining out, and the price on the check is almost always commensurate with the entertainment experience we've received. When it is not, we don't go back. But if it were often not, across a wide variety of restaurants, we would stop going out. Since we dine out often, it must be the case that we're getting our entertainment-dollar's worth.

What they don't understand is that in this business, in terms of execution, is complex and random. It's quite unpredictable. If you want predictable, there are lots of fast food places.

Stop complaining.

Unless you're going to the same place every weekend. Your experience was random. In fact, that very night you dined at "x" place, someone else had completely the opposite experience, and it may have had nothing to do with the restaurant.

sorry, but that's just false. "random", for starters, is completely incorrect. while restaurant dining may be unpredictable and subject to multiple forces that can alter the dining experience, it's certainly not "random".

good restaurants strive for, and very often achieve, consistency. as a chef, it's one of the most important things we try and hammer home to our employees. as a consumer, it's one of the most important criteria for choosing favorites.

i have restaurants that i've been going to for YEARS and they manage to avoid your "random"ness every single time i eat there. i'd venture to guess that a majority of people, like me, find a dish they love and then return fairly often to get it again. if it wasn't the same, or their experience was as "random" as you claim, they wouldn't go back.

as for your admonishment to "stop complaining"......why? why should we?

it is *not* too much to expect consistency from restaurants, and there's not anything wrong with talking about one's experience and noting the negatives.

one thing you are correct about, however, is that two people dining in the same restaurant on the same night, might have completely opposite experiences and that might have zero to do with the restaurant. sure, people bring their own attitudes and expectations to the experience and that's not something the restaurant can control. but that's ok, and yes, both people still have the right to expect consistency and quality from their experience, and to talk about it--complain, even--if they want to. it's the restaurant's job to please both of them, different as their attitudes and expectations might be.

and, again, there are plenty of restaurants that are good enough to do that on a regular basis.

as someone who's been working in the industry for 15 years, reading your post makes me sad. and angry. what's more, from the sound of what you wrote, EOFS, you appear to also be employed by the foodservice industry. are you?

if so, you should consider getting out. this industry is about hospitality. which means making people feel happy and special and taken care of.

if you truly believe that it's all "random" and has so little to do with the actions of the restaurant, then why would you want to work in an industry as demanding and grueling as this one?

personallly, the pride i take in producing consistently high-quality dishes, and in consistently providing good hospitality to my guests is one of the major motivators that gets me up and to work in the morning.

if i were as negative and jaded as you appear to be, i'd be scanning the classifieds looking for a nice quiet cubicle somewhere.

just my .02.

riddlemay wrote:

EatingOutsforSuckers wrote:Restaurant dining is random, overpriced entertainment, and your opinion is cancelled out by someone who had precisely the opposite experience at some point.

The use of the word overpriced turns your own statement into an opinion, one which I am about to "cancel out" (as you put it).

As food per se, some food in restaurants is "overpriced," if what you mean is "marked up by a large margin." You can defend that as not being opinion but assertion of fact. But as entertainment (which is the word you chose), restaurant dining is not overpriced--by my standards. We enjoy dining out, and the price on the check is almost always commensurate with the entertainment experience we've received. When it is not, we don't go back. But if it were often not, across a wide variety of restaurants, we would stop going out. Since we dine out often, it must be the case that we're getting our entertainment-dollar's worth.

I would propose a different definition for "overpriced".

I think it's silly to compare restaurants with eating at home; everyone knows that you can just about always make food for less than you would pay for it in a restaurant. If that means you prefer not to eat out, well, that's your prerogative to do whatever you like.

I also think the comparison of restaurant eating as "entertainment" tends to apply to restaurant eating as a whole, rather than any one restaurant in particular. That comparison depends on what you're comparing it to. A dinner out is going to cost more than a ticket to a movie, but less than a ticket to the Super Bowl. Those are two different experiences, just as a dinner out is different from either one.

To me, a particular restaurant is overpriced (or underpriced) when compared with others that are similar overall (i.e. similar in food, style, decor, location, etc). Vie is more expensive than Giordano's, and less expensive than Tru, but that doesn't mean anything because those restaurants provide a different overall experience; the fact that Vie is about the same price as one sixtyblue and Blackbird, which are similar in most ways, means that it is neither overpriced nor underpriced. I haven't been to Sepia yet, so I don't know what to compare it with, but its entrees are in the upper twenties. As EOS himself/herself says, it has "a food price range typical of upper-mid tier restaurants". I assume that means that Sepia is neither overpriced nor underpriced, relative to similar restaurants. And anyone who prefers not to go to that type of restaurant is welcome to spend his/her money elsewhere; that doesn't make those restaurants either overpriced or underpriced, IMHO.

elakin wrote:good restaurants strive for, and very often achieve, consistency. as a chef, it's one of the most important things we try and hammer home to our employees. as a consumer, it's one of the most important criteria for choosing favorites.

I agree. In fact, the "better" the restaurant ("better" meaning, in general, higher aspirations, nicer, more expensive, more unique and/or creative cuisine, etc), the higher the level of consistency I expect. If I go to a cheap neighborhood place, and a dish is just not that great, it's no big deal. But when I go to (and spend more money at) a fine restaurant like Everest or Oceanique, I expect dish after dish after dish to "wow" me with stunningly delicious tastes, because that's what I expect from a really great restaurant. If I get it, great; if I don't get it, I can sometimes recognize whether the issue is one of quality or one of consistency (particularly if I have multiple visits) but in either case, a place isn't great unless it can serve great food and do it consistently. The really great places can "wow" you visit after visit after visit. That's quite the opposite of "random".

riddlemay wrote:

EatingOutsforSuckers wrote:Restaurant dining is random, overpriced entertainment, and your opinion is cancelled out by someone who had precisely the opposite experience at some point.

The use of the word overpriced turns your own statement into an opinion, one which I am about to "cancel out" (as you put it).

As food per se, some food in restaurants is "overpriced," if what you mean is "marked up by a large margin." You can defend that as not being opinion but assertion of fact. But as entertainment (which is the word you chose), restaurant dining is not overpriced--by my standards. We enjoy dining out, and the price on the check is almost always commensurate with the entertainment experience we've received. When it is not, we don't go back. But if it were often not, across a wide variety of restaurants, we would stop going out. Since we dine out often, it must be the case that we're getting our entertainment-dollar's worth.

Obviously you know nothing about the business, because you're the sort of person who will stand in line at a club and pay $20 to get in. You don't know how to work the industry to get real value for your money. And it's a complete lie that you would stop going out if you didn't think you were getting an experience commensurate with the price on your check. It's the other way around. That's also enough to let me know that since you dine out often, you most certainly don't get your entertainment-dollar's worth. You go out to be treated like a shmuck, not a pro, but for as often as you say you go out, it should be, again, the other way around. Sorry.

And frankly, since you're willing to use my words, that dining out is "entertainment," well hell, it's some exorbitantly expensive entertainment compared to what your local grocer is selling for a sliver of the price. But I love that there are people like you who will tell themselves something else to justify such a foolish habit.

Cheers!

elakin wrote:

What they don't understand is that in this business, in terms of execution, is complex and random. It's quite unpredictable. If you want predictable, there are lots of fast food places.

Stop complaining.

Unless you're going to the same place every weekend. Your experience was random. In fact, that very night you dined at "x" place, someone else had completely the opposite experience, and it may have had nothing to do with the restaurant.

sorry, but that's just false. "random", for starters, is completely incorrect. while restaurant dining may be unpredictable and subject to multiple forces that can alter the dining experience, it's certainly not "random".

good restaurants strive for, and very often achieve, consistency. as a chef, it's one of the most important things we try and hammer home to our employees. as a consumer, it's one of the most important criteria for choosing favorites.

i have restaurants that i've been going to for YEARS and they manage to avoid your "random"ness every single time i eat there. i'd venture to guess that a majority of people, like me, find a dish they love and then return fairly often to get it again. if it wasn't the same, or their experience was as "random" as you claim, they wouldn't go back.

as for your admonishment to "stop complaining"......why? why should we?

it is *not* too much to expect consistency from restaurants, and there's not anything wrong with talking about one's experience and noting the negatives.

one thing you are correct about, however, is that two people dining in the same restaurant on the same night, might have completely opposite experiences and that might have zero to do with the restaurant. sure, people bring their own attitudes and expectations to the experience and that's not something the restaurant can control. but that's ok, and yes, both people still have the right to expect consistency and quality from their experience, and to talk about it--complain, even--if they want to. it's the restaurant's job to please both of them, different as their attitudes and expectations might be.

and, again, there are plenty of restaurants that are good enough to do that on a regular basis.

as someone who's been working in the industry for 15 years, reading your post makes me sad. and angry. what's more, from the sound of what you wrote, EOFS, you appear to also be employed by the foodservice industry. are you?

if so, you should consider getting out. this industry is about hospitality. which means making people feel happy and special and taken care of.

if you truly believe that it's all "random" and has so little to do with the actions of the restaurant, then why would you want to work in an industry as demanding and grueling as this one?

personallly, the pride i take in producing consistently high-quality dishes, and in consistently providing good hospitality to my guests is one of the major motivators that gets me up and to work in the morning.

if i were as negative and jaded as you appear to be, i'd be scanning the classifieds looking for a nice quiet cubicle somewhere.

just my .02.

Oh, thanks for the job assistance bro. You might ask the same of traders, brokers, real-estate agents, preachers, hedge-fund managers, credit assessors, auto salesmen, Fed chairmen, et. al. What? It's not random??

Since you're a chef, you should most certainly understand the nature of the business. Apparently in 15 years, it hasn't sunk in that the same people aren't coming into your particular place every single night. For the general public, it's a random experience. That's why so many places open and close in this town every single year.

You shouldn't consult someone who you believe is in the business, which is immaterial. I may or may not be. But you should consult an actuary, who will relay these stats to you with subtle ease.

Hell, I'm not even talking to you. Your consistency is your own output. That's not the customer's experience and never will be. Why? Because every night is different.

while restaurant dining may be unpredictable and subject to multiple forces that can alter the dining experience, it's certainly not "random".

This is a textbook definition of randomness, almost on the level of Heisenberg. Were you a physicist in a past life?

Also, if you oppose "negativity" in the form of honesty (the usual retreat), you're probably a Republican. The current administration is nonpareil.

Cheers!

You see, NS, your own definitions belie your experience. For example:

But when I go to (and spend more money at) a fine restaurant like Everest or Oceanique, I expect dish after dish after dish to "wow" me with stunningly delicious tastes, because that's what I expect from a really great restaurant. If I get it, great; if I don't get it, I can sometimes recognize whether the issue is one of quality or one of consistency (particularly if I have multiple visits) but in either case, a place isn't great unless it can serve great food and do it consistently. The really great places can "wow" you visit after visit after visit. That's quite the opposite of "random".

Really? Cuz I just checked Metromix as a simple "random" test and there are a couple of crappy reviews on there. Now for a restaurant of the quality you purport, how can this possibly be? Further, you say in your own quote that if you can "sometimes" recognize whether the issue of a failure to meet your expectations is one of quality or consistency, you might go back to check it out. But you're not a pro, so how do you know? How many times have you been there? The others who rated this restaurant poorly would most certainly disagree with you. In other words, their attention to detail was lost on these clients.

Sorry, it's random, and I agree with you: There's no way to know unless you go back time and again. Most of the posters here (by just reading their inconsistent responses) cannot possibly overcome that subjectivity.

Cheers!

Here's a sampling of your own quotes, and god is it a lesson in randomness and misapprehension, despite your years in the business (obviously from the kitchen, too).

have restaurants that i've been going to for YEARS and they manage to avoid your "random"ness every single time i eat there. i'd venture to guess that a majority of people, like me, find a dish they love and then return fairly often to get it again. if it wasn't the same, or their experience was as "random" as you claim, they wouldn't go back.

Really? Because that just reinforces my point that these forums are truly ridiculous in purporting to bring valid points to the table. Why? Because most of them begin with "I went to X restaurant last night and had a good/bad experience." You apparently go to your favorite places for many years and probably know people and get a good deal. That's simply not the case with the postings here.

Again:

as someone who's been working in the industry for 15 years, reading your post makes me sad. and angry. what's more, from the sound of what you wrote, EOFS, you appear to also be employed by the foodservice industry. are you?

if so, you should consider getting out. this industry is about hospitality. which means making people feel happy and special and taken care of.

Well, what makes you think I do or do not or have or have not worked in this industry? It's immaterial. If anyone should consider getting out it should be yourself since you care more about hospitality than any chef I've ever come across. That's for the FOH. I would never hire you. I digress.

I do eat out, but with eyes open and know how to have a phenomenal time but not get taken like a sucker. Read some Anthony Bourdain since I can't relate all the insider's tips here to you.

Oh yeah, my post should make you neither sad nor angry, but curious. And that curiosity should take you to facts, to real posts from real people who post their astonishingly naive summations.

I'm just summing up the collective experience here, which is thus: Your singular (or even deuced) experience at a particular restaurant does not merit your negative (more than likely) or positive (less likely) "review" on a public forum which may positively/negatively affect another malinformed reader's decision to go to said restaurant.

This viewpoint may be apprised solely by reading the wildly disparate and polarized experiences of (pick your writer) at (pick your restaurant), and being upset about your own wildly different and immensely more important dining experience.

Oh yeah, Vettel or Bruno will differ with you and will have more literary firepower at their disposal. Caution. The Nectar of ManEating Flower creme-brulee will bite.

Cheers!

whoa.

can you say troll? yup, i knew you could!

bye bye now, EOFS. have a good life.

you care more about hospitality than any chef I've ever come across. That's for the FOH.

and there you have it. hospitality is for FOH. 'nuff said. i don't see any point in continuing this discussion with you.

EatingOutsforSuckers wrote:..in this business, in terms of execution, is complex and random. It's quite unpredictable. If you want predictable, there are lots of fast food places.

“If someone has a great dish and returns to have it again, and you don’t serve it to him in exactly the same way, then you’re a dick.”

Mario Batali, in a pep talk to his staff, as recounted by Bill Buford in Heat.

For the general public, it's a random experience. That's why so many places open and close in this town every single year.

actually, places close down for lots of reasons, most of them not at all random. in fact, predicting which places will close in a year is not all that difficult, especially if you know something about the owners.

but, i can see how, if one brings a horrible inhospitable mindset to opening a restaurant, views their clientèle with contempt and disdain, and then their restaurant closes down within a year, it would be tempting to explain it away with a wave of the hand by saying it's all just "random".

whatever you need to tell yourself, i guess.

I must commend EOFS for the consistency in attitude between his/her username and his/her posts.

Informed opinion
plus
informed opinion
plus
informed opinion
plus
detailed account with photos
minus
opinion of someone with whom you normally don't agree
plus
extended period of time
minus
incessant whining by 'all-knowing' troll
equals
meaningful consensus of opinion

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:Informed opinion
plus
informed opinion
plus
informed opinion
plus
detailed account with photos
minus
opinion of someone with whom you normally don't agree
plus
extended period of time
minus
incessant whining by 'all-knowing' troll
equals
meaningful consensus of opinion

=R=

Ronnie, that should be our mission statement!

Your singular (or even deuced) experience at a particular restaurant does not merit your negative (more than likely) or positive (less likely) "review" on a public forum which may positively/negatively affect another malinformed reader's decision to go to said restaurant.

i read an interesting article not too long ago about the impact that food bloggers/food message boards, etc, have on restaurants. the article included a few chefs/restaurateurs expressing more or less the same opinion as our embittered friend here, and talking about how these people--expressing their opinions--are effecting their livelihood, their ability to earn a living.

but what is the alternative?

shall we not allow people to express their opinions about their dining experience? how would we go about prohibiting that? how can anyone say that every single person is not entitled to their opinion and to share it with others. in fact, this is nothing new--restaurants have lived and died from word of mouth forever--it's just that the word of mouth spreads faster and more widely now with the advent of the internet.

but to say that someone's "singular" (and how can one person have anything but a singular?) experience doesn't "merit" posting something on a public message board? how can anyone say that? freedom of speech, anyone?

i mean, we do have libel and slander laws in place, so if someone says something untrue, there is recourse.

but i think that most people read these kind of boards knowing that it's just one person's opinion, and they take it with appropriate grains of salt. the internet is rife with info and opinions, and people are becoming pretty savvy about figuring out which ones to ignore and which to give credence to.

but as someone who works in the industry and runs a restaurant, all of this just falls under the umbrella of "that which i cannot control". you do your best to make sure every guest is happy and satisfied and feels good about their experience and then you let go.

in fact, these forums, for restaurateurs who *care* about providing hospitality, want to improve, and can hear constructive (or not) criticism without taking it too personally, provide a very valuable service. people are saying this stuff somewhere, it's just that, pre-internet, we weren't privy to it. now we are. that's a good thing.

being angry that forums like this exist for people to express their opinions is pointless. being angry at people for expressing their opinions (or telling them they don't deserve to have opinions) is stupid. and claiming that unsatisfied diners cannot be helped because it's all so "random" is an enormous cop-out.

if you want to work in this industry then you accept the parameters that exist. it is what it is. can't handle it? don't want to try? don't think you can possibly please people? fine, then get out. if you don't choose to leave the industry, you will most likely find yourself gone sooner rather than later anyway. don't let the swinging door hit your ass on the way out of the kitchen.

"Malinformed"? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a more savvy group of food enthusiasts than you do right here.

Saying "it's all random, so why try to make sense of it" is kind of what absurdist drama of the 60s was saying (with much wind). That's why Theater of the Absurd is so boring; just throwing up your hands and saying Everything is Random/Nothing Makes Sense just is not interesting or accurate. And it's way too easy.

When someone posts something (or so many things) as inane as EOFS, why does anyone feel the need to reply? There's no point in discussing any of his silliness, and if no one fuels the fire perhaps it will just die out and go away.

deesher wrote:When someone posts something (or so many things) as inane as EOFS, why does anyone feel the need to reply? There's no point in discussing any of his silliness, and if no one fuels the fire perhaps it will just die out and go away.

Sometimes an extreme viewpoint becomes the nucleus for a valuable discussion. I don't feel we should label these comments "inane," which is itself inflammatory.

David Hammond wrote:

deesher wrote:When someone posts something (or so many things) as inane as EOFS, why does anyone feel the need to reply? There's no point in discussing any of his silliness, and if no one fuels the fire perhaps it will just die out and go away.

Sometimes an extreme viewpoint becomes the nucleus for a valuable discussion. I don't feel we should label these comments "inane," which is itself inflammatory.

Sometimes. . . , and I do agree that "inane" is inappropriate and inflammatory. And, altho I disagree with your characterization of the Theatre of the Absurd (which I find to be extremely thought-provoking at times), I think there is a certain degree of absurdity to the kind of commentary initiated by a character designating him/herself as EOFS within the context of a serious food site such as LTH. Sort of like a hardened atheist (one, in fact, who seems to have fallen from grace) contributing to the "Jesus Saves" website (or vice versa). For what purpose? To change opinions? I doubt it. To contribute to the dialogue? Well, perhaps unintentionally. To rattle some chains? If so, he/she has obviously succeeded there. I do, however, sympathize with those new to the site who need to work through all this to get to some "informed opinions" about GZ and Sepia.

I agree that this is a worthy discussion, and suggest everything below EOIFS's first post be moved to a separate thread in Site Chat, a la the Bluebird move last month. As-is, I think this digression might scare new potential posters on Sepia.

Santander wrote:I agree that this is a worthy discussion, and suggest everything below EOIFS's first post be moved to a separate thread in Site Chat, a la the Bluebird move last month. As-is, I think this digression might scare new potential posters on Sepia.

Agreed and done.

EOFS...

So which restaurant do you work at and who bashed you?

(That smell... I know I've smelled it before... it's-- it could be-- YES! Sour grapes!)

I've seen the "all opinions are wrong" theory floated before, both food-related and otherwise, but rarely with such venom.

Thanks for stopping by, though!

EOFS's posts are awesome and entertaining

i can't wait for the next one, i love reading absurdity

EOFS does have plenty of allies WRT to his/her thoughts on amateurs blogging about food. From a Zagat email received today, under the heading, "What the Pros Want in 2008/We Could Do With Less...":

"Blogging by non-food professionals/experts: I'd rather see more accomplished food writers/critics who I respect reporting on food and dining. Let the professionals do their work. Blogging these days is often too influential in negative ways for chefs and restaurateurs."
– Roland Passot, chef-owner, SF's La Folie, among others

I've heard Mario Batali say something similar, too. Thoughts?