milz50 wrote: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

That doesn't surprise (or alarm) me at all. Hotels are typically dead most of of January. I'm sure low hotel occupancy entered into the equation. BTW, I'm also sure the Elysian isn't the only hotel to close one or more of its restaurants during January.

stevez wrote:
That doesn't surprise (or alarm) me at all. Hotels are typically dead most of of January.

Agreed. I wanted to post it since it seems several people are going to try the restaurant in the near future.

nsxtasy wrote: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.

So, the first person to put words down gets to set the tone for the topic in perpetuity? ...that's even more alarming to me. If/when someone has an experience that dramatically differs from your "Deeply flawed" one, why would they think to post it under a topic with such a heading? It would make as much sense as posting it in the thread for another restaurant.

Having read the entire thread it sounds like "Deeply flawed" was written to raise eyebrows and is at the very least an overstatement. You've couched several of your critiques in subsequent posts, not to mention the fact that the entirety of your summation seems to be based on the failure to meet expectations set by the fact that Ria was recently awarded ** Michelin stars (a relatively new phenomenon and an impression entirely likely to fade or change...). So, why should this one "Deeply flawed" impression that is itself the result of a rather impermanent moment in time forever be the jumping off point for discussions on Ria? Because you were first to write about it? I'm sorry, but I think we can do better than that.

I hope that we can have one single thread about Ria. While the Subject line described the post that followed, I think that in general when the topic is a single restaurant, it is better to have a neutral topic (although this does not always - or often - happen). Perhaps Nsxtasy and Ronnie can agree on a suitable revised heading, e.g., "Ria, new restaurant at the Elysian"

If we're going to go that route, then we ought to be able to suggest changes to the titles of other topics with subjective comments with which we disagree. And of course, we should be able to change them to eliminate title comments that are positive as well as those that are negative. I can think of several others I'd like to change, and I bet others can too!

Of course, that's only the first step. Next thing we'll see is a bunch of requests for me to change what I've written.

kl1191 wrote:the entirety of your summation seems to be based on the failure to meet expectations set by the fact that Ria was recently awarded ** Michelin stars

Absolutely NOT true. The expectations are those of a high-end Chicago restaurant, same as any restaurant that charges $20+ for appetizers and $40+ for entrees. Yes, I mentioned the Michelin stars, only to provide the appropriate context. I could have just as easily referred to it as high-end without mentioning Michelin. Most people understand what a high-end, expensive restaurant here is like. The simple fact is that my experience at Ria fails to meet the standards set by comparably-priced luxury hotel restaurants such as NoMI, Sixteen, or Avenues, just to name three.

Seriously, I'm amazed how so many people are bending over backwards to pick apart every word I've written. And it all appears to be coming from people who have never been to Ria. In the meantime, no one seems to see a problem with busstaff who reach to take away a plate when the diner's fork is in mid-air, or with a server who does not give equal sized servings and does not do anything about it, or with food that is served lukewarm or undercooked, or with any of the other 8-10 flaws and gaffes I experienced during my dinner there (which were much, MUCH worse than I see at most Chicago-area restaurants costing half as much as Ria). Nobody seems to care about how good or bad the food or service was at Ria; they just want to lambast the post about it. And then bury it by creating another topic about the restaurant, which is never done for other restaurants.

What I am wondering is how fellow LTHers feel we should define the term 'restaurant' when we award GNR's. And does Green City Market charge too much?

This thread is becoming almost entirely worthless, at least as far as a discussion of Ria is concerned. I hope either a new one is started or the tangents are split.

I'd be fine with moving all the posts about tipping into the topic on that subject in the Other Culinary Chat forum.

The value of a thread is to have all the discussion of a restaurant on that thread so it is easily accessible. I just didn't want two Ria threads. I don't really care what the thread is named, but in general I think neutral naming is preferable. The content can be as lively as posters wish, but the title is a guide to the topic of the thread, although I admit that this post is tangential to the evaluation of Ria, Josh is correct about that, and if we have a single thread, the mods can delete my posts.

nsxtasy wrote:

MJN wrote:Can one really trust a post about a "grugere" or one that defers to the descriptor "meh" - which is more troubling and less thoughtful than of the supposed service miscues? As for the ice tea

Can one really trust a post that refers to "ice tea" rather than "iced tea"?

Touche. Though at the risk of sounding like Sarah Palin, I'd argue that "ice tea" is a culturally accepted corruption of the phrase, whereas grugere is a little farther afield.

Again, as I said, I appreciated the breadth, but it just felt like you liked the food for the most part, but got hung up on some things that don't necessarily seem black and white like bad service choices and let that color the review highly. I mean only you know, so I apologize if I've misperceived that.

That being said, I am perplexed that you really think the right thing to do is have the staff bring you something you don't want just because someone might want it in theory? They brought you the very best thing they could: simple syrup. If you were in almost any other restaurant in Chicago including many high end ones they would have brought you granulated stuff in a carousel which never dissolves in iced tea. That's what I think makes RIA 2 star. And that being said, if you had said, "you know I really can't eat sugar, I need a substitute" they probably would have brought it with bells on 2 mins later. So again, is that an inconvenience?

G Wiv wrote:

MJN wrote:but I definitely question the fairness of the post as it seems to almost too weighted on the trivial.

On the other hand, not one fashion or indie music reference that I had to look up to understand context.

Being culturally literate is a burden, I know.

So, why should this one "Deeply flawed" impression that is itself the result of a rather impermanent moment in time forever be the jumping off point for discussions on Ria? Because you were first to write about it? I'm sorry, but I think we can do better than that.

Have to agree with the OP when he wrote about the headings for Tac Quick and Naha. Everytime I see the Naha thread, I wish I could retitle it...Naha: a weak grounder to short, out at first. due to the average at best meal I had there the one time I went. But I can't. What I can do is add my opinion to the thread which in turn, as several posters have written, adds to the variety and diversity of opinions.
Long live Ria- Deeply flawed(despite high aspirations)

For those who read the comments in every thread, your theory of a single thread, however inflammatory the title, is great.

For the rest of us, inflammatory titles are apt to create our image of what restaurants are worth considering. It's really only by chance that I started reading this thread, as the title promised some decent snark or bile, and I was in the mood for such. But I certainly had seen the title, and would see it every time I come to the forum until this thread makes its way off the front page.

A few days ago, I posted mention of a health department notice at a restaurant, and was PM'd to let me know that it's against policy to mention such things, as they can have a drastic impact on a restaurant, even though we have little way of verifying that they're true. I conceded the wisdom of this policy.

It seems to me that a twin policy of insisting that initial titles stick, while simultaneously pushing that there be only one thread per restaurant, is apt to have a similar or worse effect. Worse because, in the case of most health department postings, they aren't reflected in thread titles, so only a small number of forum users read them. But most everyone will see "Ria - Deeply Flawed" till D.F. becomes not merely a subtitle to the thread, but to the restaurant's very name.

I think threads that last more than a couple days should have their titles moderated. The other option is to allow people with wildly varying impressions to start their own threads in an effort to ensure that the many casual participants here get a more nuanced sense of the opinion of such an eatery. It's absurdly unfair to say Nsxtacy can set the tone for the vast majority of visitors, and well, if you disagree, you're welcome to argue it out down in the footnotes on p. 3.

Sigh - here I am bumping up what I'm going to refer to from here on out as "Nsxtacy's deeply flawed thread". Maybe I'll go see if I have anything to offer to Ronny's thread to bump that one too.

MJN wrote:I am perplexed that you really think the right thing to do is have the staff bring you something you don't want just because someone might want it in theory?

I'm perplexed why you ignore the fact that the staff didn't bring me something which I did indeed want - sweetener of some kind. It's a big inconvenience and a major service flaw when they don't bring any sweetener at all and don't ask whether you would like any, which necessitates calling them back again. I've eaten at hundreds of restaurants in Chicago, from the fanciest to cheap neighborhood spots, and have never had to do so elsewhere. If they had automatically brought only the syrup without having to be asked, I wouldn't even have mentioned it here.

This is basic stuff, not rocket science, and it extends to coffee service as well. Restaurants - all except Ria, apparently - ask whether you would like coffee. When you order a cup of coffee, they either bring some form of sweetener (and cream), or ask you if you would like some. To simply pour coffee without bringing sweetener and then walk away is not an acceptable level of service. Same thing for iced tea. And to not offer coffee is also not an acceptable level of service.

As for what they bring, a couple of months ago I ate at three restaurants in another city, restaurants that had all received 2-3 Michelin stars. Needless to say, all brought some form of sweetener without having to ask. And in all three cases it consisted of a small tray containing a form of upscale-ish sweetener (liquid syrup or cubes) as well as packets of artificial sweetener.

kl1191 wrote:
So, why should this one "Deeply flawed" impression that is itself the result of a rather impermanent moment in time forever be the jumping off point for discussions on Ria? Because you were first to write about it? I'm sorry, but I think we can do better than that.

I look forward to watching you champion your cause of not editorializing topic titles - uniformly. Why is it that *only* nsxtasy is chided for doing so? Just for snicks I scrolled through the first 3 pages of Eating Out in Chicago topic titles (I added my own editorializing in parentheses)

You've got to sink your teeth into Katy's Dumplings! (a directive, no less)
Hoanh Long --worthy Vietnamese! (bonus for exclamation point)
Fabulous Noodles (here, they get a pass, it's actually their name )
Smak-Tak - great Polish in Jefferson Park (agreed, it is great)
Las Asadas - Just Showing Some Overdue Love (love is good, but anything less is . . . ?)
Naha Knocks It Out of the Ballpark (presumably a home run and not a long foul)
Tac Quick - great as ever (was still great last time I was there)
Blue 13: An Impressive New Restaurant in River North (Impressive, thank Jah, and not *flawed*)
David Burke's Primehouse - Yowsa! (Jumpin' Jiminey!)

Now - that's just the first THREE pages.

So I ask - why is it raising such a feces storm when nsxtasy does the same DAMN thing that so many others do and NEVER once have I seen a peep about it?

I think some people either need to get off their high horses or start passing step ladders all around. Or, if this is such the important issue so many claim it to be, insist upon a neutral standard for topic titles (I would be against this, myself).

My favorite editorializing thread title (which is evidence that there is a wide berth given to these sorts of things around here):

my last abonimable meal @ lth

Kman wrote:So I ask - why is it raising such a feces storm when nsxtasy does the same DAMN thing that so many others do and NEVER once have I seen a peep about it?

Without endorsing or condoning the current fecal flurry, I did want to draw attention to the title debate in the "Silver Seafood--two thumbs blandly sideways" where these same issues were discussed at length.

-Dan

Kman wrote:

kl1191 wrote:
So, why should this one "Deeply flawed" impression that is itself the result of a rather impermanent moment in time forever be the jumping off point for discussions on Ria? Because you were first to write about it? I'm sorry, but I think we can do better than that.

I look forward to watching you champion your cause of not editorializing topic titles - uniformly. Why is it that *only* nsxtasy is chided for doing so? Just for snicks I scrolled through the first 3 pages of Eating Out in Chicago topic titles (I added my own editorializing in parentheses)

As the person who raised the point in the first place (and the person who started the editorially-titled Smak-Tak thread), let me just say that there was no chiding whatsoever. It's simply a matter of opinion and preference. All I'm saying is that it'd be hard to write a post in a thread where the title is so opposed to one's own experience. And I'd have no problem with it if someone went to Smak-Tak, hated it and started a new thread, though I'd be disappointed that they didn't enjoy it.

Even among the 3/4 of us moderators who have weighed in on this here, there's no consensus about the matter. Personally, I like this less-structured approach to things. Being a former host and manager at eGullet, I appreciate the fact that we have looser guidelines. There, we hosts were asked to merge all threads on similar topics. For that time and place -- and the software we were running -- that made perfect sense. Here, I'm not sure it really does.

For now, it seems to me that the bottom line is that our members are free to title threads they start in any way they see fit, with the understanding that the more editorial they are, the more likely it is that another member may start his or her own thread, rather than adding to the existing one.

=R=

partially for the moderators, partially for myself

post script:

I should point out that for Silver Seafood, there are in fact four separate threads, two of which editorialize in their titles. The one with the strongest title tone and sparked the lengthy discussion, was actually the last of the four threads to be started.

Silver Seafood (Aug, 2004)
Silver Seafood; friendly, but...? (Nov, 2004)
Silver Seafood is Back (Mar, 2005)
Silver Seafood--two thumbs blandly sideways (Apr, 2009)

In this case, a new thread with an editorialized title was created and not merged in to one of the existing threads and it caused a scat cyclone, proving only that there's precedent for anything, if you're willing to dig for it.

-Dan

This thread makes me very dizzy. I look forward to it settling down and sharing notes from my visit to Ria.

stevez wrote:

milz50 wrote: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

That doesn't surprise (or alarm) me at all. Hotels are typically dead most of of January. I'm sure low hotel occupancy entered into the equation. BTW, I'm also sure the Elysian isn't the only hotel to close one or more of its restaurants during January.

I'm attending a private event at Ria toward the end of the period when they'll be closed. I hope I can get a preview of the changes.

Finally, to insert some of my own ego into this thread, one can also sample some of Chef McLeod's food at the Grand Chefs Gala next month. I realize the ticket price is more than a meal at Ria for one person, but it's for an important cause. The planners of the event, myself included, feel very lucky to have Chef McLeod contributing.

The Silver Seafood thread is one of the best. It started with a gently skeptical but fair review and ends with a Cantonese poster saying she brought a group from Hong Kong who really dug the place. In between, lots of people tried out SS and we learned more about Cantonese and HK style food and restaurants. Many times, it's the contrarian negative review that gets people going to and talking about a place. Not sure a Michelin 2 star needs it the way an Upton stripmall Chinese does, but who cares, ink's cheap on the internet.

Look,

I'm actually taking my fiancee out to Ria tonight for her birthday. Despite the previous dialog's ham-fisted loquacity, I am left with three basic undertones of what the evening will portend:

Tiny
Tasty
Austere

As many have pointed out, little has been divulged regarding the food. Our articulate OP described the crab with leeks was described as delicious. How was it delicious? I have never tasted a combination of crab and leeks. Did the crab taste crisp and fresh, and how did this play off the sharp tang of the leeks? Were the leeks melted, braised, grilled, flambeed? Did the dish just consist of three elements? Was there any notable spice that tied the three elements together -- a sauce perhaps?

I can continue to lampoon snarkiness, but going into tonight, I want to know if the flavors worked and how they worked. And after 78 posts on this topic, I am left flabbergasted that I had a better idea of the food at Ria before visiting LTH. With the amount of sophisticated palletes this board harbors, it's astoundingly counter-culture. I get it already that Ria is not a place to go for a bang-for-your-buck meal... and yeah... getting hosed on four iced-teas is irritating. It happened to me in New York. But I'm a fool who is willing to over pay for over-food provided that the experience calls for it.

Kman wrote:

kl1191 wrote:
So, why should this one "Deeply flawed" impression that is itself the result of a rather impermanent moment in time forever be the jumping off point for discussions on Ria? Because you were first to write about it? I'm sorry, but I think we can do better than that.

I look forward to watching you champion your cause of not editorializing topic titles - uniformly.

Or, I could champion the right of whoever so wants to start a pro-Ria thread under the banner they so choose.

Kman wrote:So I ask - why is it raising such a feces storm when nsxtasy does the same DAMN thing that so many others do and NEVER once have I seen a peep about it?

As others have stated, this isn't the first time this has come up. And, personally, the reason I would suggest that this thread is being targeted is that the hyperbole in the title is not backed up by the content of the review and subsequent clarifications...which I thought was clear in my original post.

vinyl endive wrote:Look,

I'm actually taking my fiancee out to Ria tonight for her birthday. Despite the previous dialog's ham-fisted loquacity, I am left with three basic undertones of what the evening will portend:
[...]
And after 78 posts on this topic, I am left flabbergasted that I had a better idea of the food at Ria before visiting LTH.

Flabbergasted? I guess that is better than incensed.

It is my sanguine desire that you and your betrothed enjoy your repast this evening. Please return and chronicle your reflections of the experience for us.

With the amount of sophisticated palletes this board harbors, it's astoundingly counter-culture.

I agree.

--Rich

palletes?

I think they meant pallets.

gleam wrote:palletes?

See... that just shows how sofisticated you be.

kl1191 wrote:

As others have stated, this isn't the first time this has come up. And, personally, the reason I would suggest that this thread is being targeted is that the hyperbole in the title is not backed up by the content of the review and subsequent clarifications...which I thought was clear in my original post.

Yet - that wasn't mentioned when you were complaining about a policy of he/she who posts about the place first gets to title the topic however they see fit - something you've yet to complain about anywhere else (to my knowledge, I admit not reading EVERY post under an editorialized thread topic to verify this).

Kman wrote:

kl1191 wrote:As others have stated, this isn't the first time this has come up. And, personally, the reason I would suggest that this thread is being targeted is that the hyperbole in the title is not backed up by the content of the review and subsequent clarifications...which I thought was clear in my original post.

Yet - that wasn't mentioned when you were complaining about a policy of he/she who posts about the place first gets to title the topic however they see fit - something you've yet to complain about anywhere else (to my knowledge, I admit not reading EVERY post under an editorialized thread topic to verify this).

I suggest you re-read my post. It's directed at Nxstasy's shock that Ronnie might start a competing topic on Ria. In it I was arguing against the combination of two things: 1) Editorializing in the subject of a post *AND* 2) Combination of all posts on a single subject into the first post on that topic. This is what nsxtasy (and others) were advocating up thread, as my original post quoted. The combination of these two policies would result in both a race to post first and potentially with a subject as inflammatory as possible. It would also consign people who wanted to write on a topic to potentially using threads which have subjects completely opposite of their beliefs. I don't believe anyone should be censored (beyond the existing posting guidelines). Editorialize away, but don't force me to write in a thread whose subject I wholeheartedly disagree with.

I've made it very clear why this thread in particular has raised my hackles, in both my original post and the one you quote. Your observation that I haven't scoured the forum to condemn editorializing in other places is pointless, because I couldn't care less about editorializing in subjects. My only hope is that the person editorializing actually has the ability to back it up in the thread.

Unexpectedly, I've learned a lot more about the various posters in this thread than Ria, unfortunately.

I went there last night and thought the experience absolutely superb. Truly, a great place with international level service and cuisine. Loved it and will be back frequently and with great enthusiasm.

At every level, the experience was terrific. The service left nothing to be desired. Cocktails were very proper and impressive. In the bar area, they had red label Old Raj, which isn't often found (except at Sable). The staff and FOH were spot on, and the tasting menu impressive. I now know why my chef friends have been telling me to go here; I don't know how I've missed it this long.

And did you see Alan Richman's article listing one of the desserts the best in the USA at Balsan? http://www.gq.com/food-travel/alan-rich ... an-richman

Ria is a gem for Chicago.