riddlemay wrote:

milz50 wrote:They do add a 18% service charge to all bills, a practice which I like...

My only problem with that--and let me hasten to add that I nearly always tip 20% or a little above--is that pre-adding the service charge to the bill for a small party says, in the language of arithmetic, "We don't trust that you will tip our staff an adequate amount if left to your own devices." I receive that as a hostile message.

Considering the number of international travelers at this hotel -- who may not understand tipping conventions the in the U.S. -- I don't really read it as hostile.

=R=

riddlemay wrote:"We don't trust that you will tip our staff an adequate amount if left to your own devices." I receive that as a hostile message.

Considering you expressed a "fear" of the ordering line/seating arrangement at Smoque your 'hostile" varies greatly from many, certainly mine.

G Wiv wrote:

riddlemay wrote:"We don't trust that you will tip our staff an adequate amount if left to your own devices." I receive that as a hostile message.

Considering you expressed a "fear" of the ordering line/seating arrangement at Smoque your 'hostile" varies greatly from many, certainly mine.

Just for the record, in one of the Smoque threads (there have been a few) I wrote about going to Smoque and finding my fears unfounded; I enjoyed my experience there quite a bit. In any case, these are different issues. With Smoque, my feeling based on what I'd read was "these people have a terrific business model, but maybe it's just not for me"; with Ria's pre-inclusion of the tip, my feeling is "these people don't trust me." In the first instance, I don't sense anything "personal"; in the second, I do. Although Ron's point about the hotel's international clientele is a good one that I hadn't considered, and which tempers my reaction.

I find the tipping practice curious, not necessarily offensive. It will be interesting to see whether it catches on, particularly at high-end restaurants located in luxury hotels likely to be frequented by international travelers, such as Avenues, NoMI, etc.

However, I wonder to what extent those who travel here from overseas are clueless about tipping. One of the first things you'll see when you're planning to travel abroad and read overviews about where you're going, is the tipping policy.

By way of background, the Elysian was developed by David Pisor, and his aunt, Alice Waters, started adding a flat 20 percent service charge to the bill at her restaurant, Chez Panisse, 20 years ago.

There are multiple articles in the media wondering whether this is a trend that will catch on. You can google "elysian hotel chicago tipping" and/or check out these examples:

New luxury hotel in Chicago has no-tipping-necessary policy; rival says it's worth watching (USA Today)

No Tipping at Chicago Hotel (Wall St Journal)

Does Chicago's Elysian signal the beginning of the end for tipping at hotels? (walletpop.com)

The articles mention that the philosophy includes paying employees more so that they are not dependent on tips, and that it creates an environment where staff do not always "have their hand out". And, of course, doing things in a different way creates PR (as you can see from these links).

However, I wonder to what extent those who travel here from overseas are clueless about tipping. One of the first things you'll see when you're planning to travel abroad and read overviews about where you're going, is the tipping policy.

True, but I'm not sure you would find a lot of overviews recommending 20% as the norm. Probably 20% as the high end and if you come from a country where there is nominal or no tipping, I'd suspect you're going to gravitate towards the low end of the range.

nsxtasy wrote:The articles mention that the philosophy...creates an environment where staff do not always "have their hand out".

Over the summer we spent a glorious few days at the Mohonk Mountain House near New Paltz, NY. This hotel/resort--founded by Quakers in the 1870s and still in the family--has a universal no-tipping policy (covering the doorman, the valet parkers, the housekeepers, the restaurant staff, and anyone else you can think of), and even though I was slightly uncomfortable with this at first (I'm accustomed to tipping, and I want to tip), I did begin to notice that it created a beautiful atmosphere in which staff was being helpful because it desired to be helpful and not in the expectation of a reward other than your satisfaction. So I definitely see that side of it.

riddlemay wrote:I did begin to notice that it created a beautiful atmosphere in which staff was being helpful because it desired to be helpful and not in the expectation of a reward other than your satisfaction.

Maybe the staff was being helpful because it's their job to be helpful. Their reward is their paycheck.

stevez wrote:

riddlemay wrote:I did begin to notice that it created a beautiful atmosphere in which staff was being helpful because it desired to be helpful and not in the expectation of a reward other than your satisfaction.

Maybe the staff was being helpful because it's their job to be helpful. Their reward is their paycheck.

Yes, for sure, but I think the point is that the staff's perception that it was its job to be helpful was enhanced by the hotel-wide policy of no-tipping.

Also for sure, just instituting a no-tipping policy isn't enough--it has to be part of a whole "corporate culture" in which staff understands that its most important job is ensuring customer satisfaction. Maybe that is true at The Elysian.

rickster wrote:True, but I'm not sure you would find a lot of overviews recommending 20% as the norm.

I just did a web search (same as folks in other countries might do before coming here) and found a couple of descriptions of tipping in the United States, both of which strike me as more appropriately nuanced than a flat, mandatory 20 percent (which IMHO is justified by excellent service but is not "the norm" across the board throughout the United States, and I have yet to read an authoritative source that says otherwise):

The Original Tipping Page:

The Original Tipping Page wrote:waiter or waitress - 15% to 20% of bill. If you receive excellent service or if it is a 4 star + restaurant or large parties, a 20% or greater tip is recommended.

Trip Advisor:

Trip Advisor wrote:Restaurants with table service: Tip 15% of the bill, based on the quality of service. If you receive exceptional service, 15-25% is customary. In most major cities of the U.S. however, 20% is considered to be a "good tip".

rickster wrote:if you come from a country where there is nominal or no tipping, I'd suspect you're going to gravitate towards the low end of the range.

That seems to me to be an unfair slam against those in such countries. I don't see any reason to prejudge such folks in that way.

Getting a little OT, but do people typically tip (18%, 20%, etc.) pre-tax or post-tax? Always was curious.

milz50 wrote:Getting a little OT, but do people typically tip (18%, 20%, etc.) pre-tax or post-tax? Always was curious.

Everything I've read says pre-tax so that's how I've always figured it. And most, but not all, of the places that add it automatically (it's common with larger parties) do so pre-tax.

riddlemay wrote:Yes, for sure, but I think the point is that the staff's perception that it was its job to be helpful was enhanced by the hotel-wide policy of no-tipping.

Also for sure, just instituting a no-tipping policy isn't enough--it has to be part of a whole "corporate culture" in which staff understands that its most important job is ensuring customer satisfaction. Maybe that is true at The Elysian.

Have to agree here - it's one reason I'm very loyal to Fairmont Hotels who go the no tipping route but also clearly create a culture and workplace that encourages good service as part of its dna. And I find that staff stay at Fairmont's for quite a while - I suspect as a result. I was first aware of it when eating at the Fairmont at Whistler ... just perfect service in the warmest possible way and ever since I've been a fan.

nsxtasy wrote:

milz50 wrote:Getting a little OT, but do people typically tip (18%, 20%, etc.) pre-tax or post-tax? Always was curious.

Everything I've read says pre-tax so that's how I've always figured it. And most, but not all, of the places that add it automatically (it's common with larger parties) do so pre-tax.

We always do post-tax, but most people we know do pre-tax.

leek wrote:We always do post-tax, but most people we know do pre-tax.

Giving a post-tax tip works out the same as giving a pre-tax tip that's higher by roughly 2 percent. So you can do the calculation either way and wind up with the same result.

So a $200 bottle of wine brings a $35 tip versus the ice(d) tea at about $0.75. Not sure that's ideal, but when you're dropping that much cash, what's another $35?

teatpuller wrote:So a $200 bottle of wine brings a $35 tip versus the ice(d) tea at about $0.75. Not sure that's ideal, but when you're dropping that much cash, what's another $35?

Applying a percentage inevitably leads to variations in tips. For example, it's not obvious why a waiter or sommelier would receive a different tip for a $200 bottle of wine than for a $50 bottle of wine at the exact same restaurant, since they require the exact same work to serve, but that's what results from applying a straight percentage.

To me, tips should be a guideline rather than an exact science, and you can be flexible with your tipping approach to ensure that the staff receive a tip that would be considered fair and reasonable. There's nothing that says you can't give a much larger percentage tip if the items you order happen to comprise a relatively low dollar amount on which to base a tip. For example, I sometimes dine solo; when I do, I usually tip substantially higher than 18-20 percent. Why? Because I know that serving a meal to one person requires almost as much work as it does to serve a meal to two or more people, despite the lower amount of the check.

I don't usually post in response to this type of discussion, but I am incensed on so many levels, that I must speak out:

1. The majority of this thread has nothing to do with the food and service specific to Ria, other than the initial post, which was based on ONE, repeat ONE, visit and one experience.

2. I question the prudence of basing the title of the thread on that one particular experience with such negativity.

3. As far as discussions on tipping policies that only relate to RIA tangentially, they should be moved to the Other Culinary Chat section. On that note, having been a server for more than 2 decades from fine dining to your local joints, it is bone breaking and emotional wearing work. People are demanding....read your own threads and reflect. Especially when hourly wage was $2.01 an hour, usually with no medical benefits or disability benefits of any sort. No matter my opinions on LEYE places, but Richard Melman was a pioneer in offering fair wages, extensive training, and benefits to the wait staff, something that was unheard of previously. (I think the hourly wage varies now from $3+ to minimum wage, but not more.)

4. I have not been to Ria, but have visited Balsan on several occasions, and the service has been exceptional as soon as I step onto Elysian property. Every staff member, like Fairmont and Four Seasons, are professional and welcoming without attitude. So 18% is worthy, whether charged automatically or not.

5. The staff at Balsan was very clear and courteous in pointing out about the 18% service charge, instead of allowing you to be misled into leaving extra gratuity.

6. Other than our own little world and perception of our little world, these establishments caters to clientele from all over the world, all walks of life, etc. I would applaud them for caring enough for their team members to impose an 18% gratuity to ensure that the staff is taken care of, with no extra tipping necessary or encouraged/allowed. This is customary in other countries and cultures. Or they can just add it to the price of the meal, and call it a day, either way, compensation for the service need to be met.

In closing, if we choose to print something in the media, we should attempt to adhere to the principles of journalism, some responsibilities of fairness and truth, as amateur/pseudo/wannabe journalists.

petite_gourmande wrote:I question the prudence of basing the title of the thread on that one particular experience with such negativity.

As much as I respect the OP for reporting his account and posting his honest (detailed) opinion, if my experience at Ria is anything other than "deeply flawed," I'll be starting a new thread when I post about it. Personally, I'm not in favor of editorializing in the subject lines of threads (especially those about restaurants) but we don't censor or edit our members' posts and they are free to title the threads they start as they see fit.

I find the digression about service interesting but do hope that as more folks dine at Ria, discussion will become more specifically focused on the restaurant. We've always welcomed such digressions here and more often than not, the conversations find their way back to the actual subjects at hand.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:

petite_gourmande wrote:I question the prudence of basing the title of the thread on that one particular experience with such negativity.

As much as I respect the OP for reporting his account and posting his honest (detailed) opinion, if my experience at Ria is anything other than "deeply flawed," I'll be starting a new thread when I post about it. Personally, I'm not in favor of editorializing in the subject lines of threads (especially those about restaurants) but we don't censor or edit our members' posts and they are free to title the threads they start as they see fit.

=R=

Ronnie - I look forward to your account of RIA next week. I agree with your stance about being censored by others, and encourage members to editorialize themselves.

Just in case anyone is counting, I'd like to be placed in the "thank you petite_gourmande" category. Especially with respect to the title (not singling out nsxtasy for that, anyone could have done that).

ronnie_suburban wrote:Personally, I'm not in favor of editorializing in the subject lines of threads (especially those about restaurants) but we don't censor or edit our members' posts and they are free to title the threads they start as they see fit.

I'm not sure how this works practically? So if there were divergent opinions, there would be two (or more) ongoing threads and people would post in the one that best fit their experience? There are certainly a lot of titles of threads about restaurants that editorialize. If people don't agree, they are free to start their own thread?

ChrisH wrote:I'm not sure how this works practically? So if there were divergent opinions, there would be two (or more) ongoing threads and people would post in the one that best fit their experience? There are certainly a lot of titles of threads about restaurants that editorialize. If people don't agree, they are free to start their own thread?

There are any number of restaurants that have multiple threads and there are any number of post subject lines that go beyond simply stating the name of the restaurant. For example this early LTHForum post I am Katsu's Bitch. As Ronnie_S said, we don't censor or edit our members' posts, except in the rare instance they run afoul of the Posting Guidelines.

Enjoy,
Gary

petite_gourmande wrote:1. The majority of this thread has nothing to do with the food and service specific to Ria, other than the initial post, which was based on ONE, repeat ONE, visit and one experience.

While I agree in large part with much of this post, I have to take issue with this item. Although there are posts and posters whose reports/reviews are based on multiple visits, the majority (perhaps even the vast majority?) of reviews on LTH are based on single visits. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. I also disagree with the closing remark that by choosing to post here, we are printing something in the media and therefore should attempt to adhere to the principles of journalism. We are not journalists. This is a chat board for a community of people sharing a common interest. We share our opinions and over time other members of the community add their own opinions. I see nothing wrong with reporting something negative (or positive, for that matter) about a place so long as the post is as accurate and as factually correct as possible. If I had a bad experience somewhere, the fact that it is a single experience doesn't invalidate what happened. Yes, in the best of all possible worlds, I would have the time (not to mention the cash) to visit everywhere we go two or three times. But that I post about my single visit to Alinea or Naha or Les Nomades based on one visit doesn't make my observations incorrect, biased, or unworthy. (Unless Kennyz says so. )

So far as the majority of the thread being off the point (the food and service specific to the restaurant): if we yanked those threads that go off on tangents, we'd have to yank most of the threads on LTH. Discussions veer off for good reasons and bad; the moderators do a pretty good job of keeping us on track. I don't see any reason or need to insist that threads be tightly reined in. Conversations meander and any good thread is almost certain to do so. (On the other hand, there's always the Pasticceria Natalina thread... )

Gypsy Boy wrote: But that I post about my single visit to Alinea or Naha or Les Nomades based on one visit doesn't make my observations incorrect, biased, or unworthy. (Unless Kennyz says so.)

I don't think I've ever called your posts any of those things. That's because they're usually too long and winding for me to get through.

Gypsy Boy wrote:

petite_gourmande wrote:1. The majority of this thread has nothing to do with the food and service specific to Ria, other than the initial post, which was based on ONE, repeat ONE, visit and one experience.

While I agree in large part with much of this post, I have to take issue with this item. Although there are posts and posters whose reports/reviews are based on multiple visits, the majority (perhaps even the vast majority?) of reviews on LTH are based on single visits. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. I also disagree with the closing remark that by choosing to post here, we are printing something in the media and therefore should attempt to adhere to the principles of journalism. We are not journalists. This is a chat board for a community of people sharing a common interest. We share our opinions and over time other members of the community add their own opinions. I see nothing wrong with reporting something negative (or positive, for that matter) about a place so long as the post is as accurate and as factually correct as possible. If I had a bad experience somewhere, the fact that it is a single experience doesn't invalidate what happened. Yes, in the best of all possible worlds, I would have the time (not to mention the cash) to visit everywhere we go two or three times. But that I post about my single visit to Alinea or Naha or Les Nomades based on one visit doesn't make my observations incorrect, biased, or unworthy. (Unless Kennyz says so.)

So far as the majority of the thread being off the point (the food and service specific to the restaurant): if we yanked those threads that go off on tangents, we'd have to yank most of the threads on LTH. Discussions veer off for good reasons and bad; the moderators do a pretty good job of keeping us on track. I don't see any reason or need to insist that threads be tightly reined in. Conversations meander and any good thread is almost certain to do so. (On the other hand, there's always the Pasticceria Natalina thread... )

Very well said.

I just want to add that, by applying so-called journalism standards to this board in that we must visit a restaurant multiple times prior to posting, would represent, 6+ years into LTH's tenure, a major shift, practically and philosophically. Interestingly, this very discussion was held in the very early days of the board, and the consensus was that, as a discussion board, we need not visit a restaurant multiple times prior to posting. Since that discussion, the media (of which I don't currently include LTH) has far-and-wide loosened their standards on reporting on restaurants (Dolinsky at Belly Shack during the 1st week, Pang & entire Trib staff at Grahamwich during first week). So to require LTH -- non-media, non-journalists that we are -- to visit a restaurant multiple times before posting would be to apply stricter standards to ourselves than even some in the "real" media do to itself.

Kennyz wrote:

Gypsy Boy wrote: But that I post about my single visit to Alinea or Naha or Les Nomades based on one visit doesn't make my observations incorrect, biased, or unworthy. (Unless Kennyz says so.)

I don't think I've ever called your posts any of those things. That's because they're usually too long and winding for me to get through.

You haven't. And, unless my command of the language fails me, I don't think that I said that you had. I guess I should have put a smiley icon in there.... There. Taken care of. The comment was intended humorously. As to "too long and winding" I will plead guilty. My posts usually are that.

Gypsy Boy wrote:

Kennyz wrote:

Gypsy Boy wrote: But that I post about my single visit to Alinea or Naha or Les Nomades based on one visit doesn't make my observations incorrect, biased, or unworthy. (Unless Kennyz says so.)

I don't think I've ever called your posts any of those things. That's because they're usually too long and winding for me to get through.

You haven't. And, unless my command of the language fails me, I don't think that I said that you had. I guess I should have put a smiley icon in there.... There. Taken care of. The comment was intended humorously. As to "too long and winding" I will plead guilty. My posts usually are that.

That's OK, Gypsy Boy. As I already knew, Gary was wrong when he wrote that it's "very f'n easy" to snark. Some people are simply lousy at it, no matter how hard they try.

Hi,

The preference is to keep the history of a restaurant in one thread. Each report is a snapshot reflecting (usually) a single visit.

By keeping everything together, a bad experience weighed against many good experiences suggests an anamoly. It can also go the other way of identifying a less than desirable restaurant to visit. A good place with a solid track record can start to show evidence of a downhill trend. All these are easily tracked if they reside in the same thread.

An intangible element derived from experience of reading this board: The reader is free to make a judgement call on the author's comments based on their track record. This is the Siskel & Ebert element: if you found Ebert's opinions parallel yours, then his thumbs up and down is meaningful. If you loved every film he hated, then you adjust your expectations.

Posters who sign up to vigorously complain about a restaurant experience on every internet website they can find, what I call the scorched Earth approach. Their opinion with zero track record means almost nothing to me and likely most of us here.

Regards,

petite_gourmande and others have raised several issues about this topic (not about the restaurant, but about the discussion itself). And ironically have been raised while at the same time objecting to the fact that much of the discussion has been about things other than Ria, which seems like a disconnect to me, but hey, the discussion goes wherever posters want to take it. So I'd like to address those issues that have been raised.

Comments in topic titles

I don't make the rules on LTH, but I do try to comply with the practices that have been widely adopted here. And one of those practices is adding a subjective comment in creating topics about specific restaurants. Sometimes that comment is positive (e.g. "Naha Knocks It Out of the Ballpark", "Tac Quick - great as ever"), and sometimes that comment is negative ("McFib Sandwich"). It's always been the prerogative of the person creating the topic (the OP, or original poster) to decide on what he/she feels is the best way to capture in a few words the gist of what he/she wants to get across. Subsequent posters then add their own comments, many based on their own experience, and those comments may or may not agree with those of the OP. That's the way it's been done here, and has become almost an LTH tradition.

I generally feel that this practice (of adding a subjective comment in the title) makes this site a bit more lively than it would be if we only named the restaurant itself. It can be frustrating when you don't agree with the original title, but it remains in perpetuity, perhaps as a testament to the OP for creating the topic.

Now, if everyone here (or even just the moderators, or even just the site owner) decided that we didn't want to allow subjective comments in the titles, we could do away with them altogether. If we went that route, I really wouldn't mind if my title is reduced to the name of the restaurant, Ria. But if we want to do this, then it is only fair to do the same for all the other topics about restaurants, including those for Naha, TAC Quick, and that godawful sandwich from McDonald's.

Number of topics for a restaurant

In most cases, this site has had one primary topic about a particular restaurant, as Cathy2 has noted. There are exceptions, such as "orphan" topics that were created in the early days of this site, or topics that are about a very specific aspect of a restaurant which differentiates it from the general-discussion topic. But for the past five years, the general practice has been to have one topic about a restaurant. And when someone creates a second general-discussion topic about a restaurant for which a topic already exists, the widely-adopted practice of the moderators is to merge those topics together into a single topic. This makes it easy to find all recent discussion for a restaurant on this site, rather than having to search and hunt down a multitude of topics.

When I want to post about an experience at a restaurant, I first search for existing topics. If there is already one, I post to the existing topic, as I did for my dinner over the weekend at Boka. If there isn't one, I create one, as I did for my dinner at Ria. That's the way it works at LTH. I don't create a lot of new topics here at LTH, but when I do, I try to capture the essence of what I saw. I've created topics where a place has been great within its context, and I've used that word in the topic. And I created this topic for Ria where the experience was decidedly mixed within its genre of high-end dining in Chicago, and worded its title accordingly.

I love Ronnie like a brother, but I find it alarming that he would create a new topic on Ria because he doesn't like the wording I used for the title in creating this topic. Are we all now going to create duplicate topics whenever we don't like the wording of a title? How is this going to work? Are we going to create a "positive topic" and a "negative topic" for every restaurant, as ChrisH suggests? Or is this a privilege that will be reserved for those who are moderators on this site? Regardless of the answers, I don't think it's a good idea. Having one topic about any given restaurant as a generally-accepted practice is a strength of this site, and I don't think it's a good idea to create exceptions to that policy for people who don't like the title when it was first created.

Number of visits to a restaurant

One of the advantages of a site like this is that you can read opinions about a restaurant from many different people. This is very different from the professional media and their food critics, who make several visits before writing an opinion (I believe the Michelin Guide makes a minimum of eight visits before awarding multiple stars to a restaurant). And in either case, we can take into account all of what we read when making our dining decisions, and can form our own opinions from our own experience.

Since we, with the exception of a handful of professional critics in our midst, are paying for our own meals and deciding ourselves on where to eat, we are under no obligation to visit a restaurant more than once. I assume that anyone will evaluate my opinion just like anyone else's, based on the one meal I describe. Furthermore, any demands that posts should only be permitted by people who visit a restaurant more than once is asking for a built-in bias. I am not likely to return to a restaurant where I had a bad experience or where I perceived a bad value for my dining dollar, and I suspect most of us are the same way. If we restrict postings here to those who visit a restaurant multiple times, we are only going to read posts from "regulars" at any given restaurant, which means (a) people who like a restaurant a lot, enough to keep returning, and (b) those who may be recognized by the staff and receive special treatment. That's what I mean by "built-in bias". And that's why I think such a suggestion is a very bad idea.

I like the way this site works. I enjoy it when I can read reviews of a particular restaurant about a single meal but from a lot of different people, which comprises much of the content on this site, as Gypsy Boy notes. If a lot of people like a place, even based on single meals there, chances are that I'm more likely to like it myself than if some people encounter serious problems. And when I spend a lot of time on this site, I can even get to differentiate some posters from others, so I find that I will often agree with username X, but not so much with username Y. Even if they are only reporting on a single meal, it's useful information in that context.

Discussions not related to the restaurant

Frankly, I would have preferred that the entire discussion about tipping policies had been posted in the Other Culinary Chat forum. That's why I posted a link to the Tips and Tipping topic in that forum, early in this discussion. But much of the discussion about tipping has been specific to Ria and Balsan, so there's that.

Expressions of opinion

I find it odd that anyone should be "incensed" over someone else's expression of opinion, especially when it's about a restaurant where that person has never even dined. LTH is all about expressions of opinion. I've expressed my opinion of my meal here in this topic, and I've tried the best I can to describe not only my overall feeling, but specific, objective reasons why I liked what I did, and what I saw that was not right. I thank those that have expressed appreciation to me for doing so, in this topic as well as in private. And I would be happy to read additional opinions about Ria by those who go there, regardless of whether their experience and opinion is similar to mine or totally different. The best way to form your own opinion about a restaurant is to dine there. And then you can post about it, so that we can add it to the knowledge base about this restaurant, and take it all into account in deciding where we wish to dine.

According to the link below and eater.com, Ria will be closed from Jan 1 - Jan 25 2011.

http://www.thefeast.com/chicago/restaurants/Ria-Closing-Temporarily-Honey-Mussels-and-Raw-Bar-Coming-to-Balsan-112285709.html