Da Beef wrote:Hey all I'm going to be throwing some love to the southside over at Serious Eats as the weeks go on. Someones gotta do it.

Big Shrimpin' at Mama Nena's

Real Charcoal Grilled Chicken at El Pollo Real

That's cool, Da Beef. Nice work!

congrats Beef!!!!! Cool stuff!

Where to Eat the Chicago Dishes You’ve Never Heard Of

Edited due to someone pointing out an error in my assertion.

Meanwhile enjoy.

Regards,

Cathy2 wrote:Where to Eat the Chicago Dishes You’ve Never Heard Of

Edited due to someone pointing out an error in my assertion.

Meanwhile enjoy.

Regards,

Nick Kindelsperger is a great guy and quite knowledgeble but the author of the piece linked above, Paige Pritchard, is more than a little late to the party and comes off as uninformed, to say the least. When did she arrive in Chicago? 4 days ago? What a shame that she did such lazy and perfunctory research on these local delicacies. That she completely fails to mention Peter Engler is flat-out inexcusable. The piece ends up being far more about Pritchard's web-surfing visit to Serious Eats than about these actual food items. Has Chicago Magazine always sucked this severely? This seems like an all-time low.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:Has Chicago Magazine always sucked this severely?

No, it hasn't.

I see Chicago Magazine only sporadically, but I looked at one recently in a doctor's office, and I see now that they organize their restaurant guide by region of the city, rather than alphabetically. This is dumb (although I guess maybe it serves some people's needs) because, A) now it's that much harder to find the restaurant you're looking for, and B) regions in this city are somewhat arbitrary--in some cases, knowing where to put a given restaurant is down to a flip of the coin--so you end up searching more than one region anyway.

Also, they unnecessarily highlight (in "yellow marker") the restaurants with three stars or more, when all you have to do is look at the stars to know which restaurants got three stars or more.

These aren't big deals, but they speak to an editorial staff that isn't thinking clearly or smartly. Which implies other more serious problems elsewhere in the magazine.

As I read it, Ms. Pritchard was just recapping Kindelsperger's article--certainly nothing to build a writing career on but not all that surprising these days. What I'm not sure I understand is why she's being vilified for not crediting Peter E.--shouldn't Kindelsperger be the one called to account for that, if anyone? (Though he did link to one of Peter's posts here so at least there's something). I'm all for attribution and almost everything he wrote about could have been sourced from Peter (and others) here but in an article with such brief entries on each item, how do we know where his info came from? Not sure I get the outrage on this one...

LTH has long been a source for "all" food media in Chicago. Ask them. If the say no, they're lying.

Jazzfood wrote:LTH has long been a source for "all" food media in Chicago. Ask them. If the say no, they're lying.

In my somewhat brief time here I've come to believe this.
A subject gets a good treatment here and within a week the Trib or Sun Times will have an article, usually with no additional info than was presented here. Sometimes I recognize the article author as someone who initiated the discussion here and I have zero problem with that, but in other cases it was clearly lifted without citation or acknowledgement. In extreme cases it boarders on plagiarism in my eyes.

Jazzfood wrote:LTH has long been a source for "all" food media in Chicago. Ask them. If the say no, they're lying.

Alan, though I do agree that mainstream journalists go fishing for (or data mine, if you prefer) content from this and other sites, it's very difficult to tell where stories come from. This has been a point of contention on this board since we started up about a decade ago, and my feeling is that if content is out there, it's well nigh impossible to say who got the story first, or if, perhaps, several writers got it around the same time. For instance, I wrote about Dillman's here before any other media outlet anywhere wrote about it (to the best of my knowledge, with the possible exception of Eater). But, of course, that doesn't mean my post here was a "source" for other stories. Now, Dillman's is a mainstream place, so it was inevitable that everyone would cover it, but the same principle applies to smaller places and smaller stories. Just because it was here first does not mean other people lifted content from here...or even that they were aware of its presence here.

I'm not saying they got this particular story from LTH. What I'm saying is that there isn't a food writer in town that hasn't/doesn't use LTH as a source of info for their own means, and that's a good thing. Would be nice if they credited the source, but that's the wild west of the internet and up to the ethics of the writer. I stand by my comment.

David Hammond wrote:

Jazzfood wrote:LTH has long been a source for "all" food media in Chicago. Ask them. If the say no, they're lying.

Alan, though I do agree that mainstream journalists go fishing for (or data mine, if you prefer) content from this and other sites, it's very difficult to tell where stories come from. This has been a point of contention on this board since we started up about a decade ago, and my feeling is that if content is out there, it's well nigh impossible to say who got the story first, or if, perhaps, several writers got it around the same time. For instance, I wrote about Dillman's here before any other media outlet anywhere wrote about it (to the best of my knowledge, with the possible exception of Eater). But, of course, that doesn't mean my post here was a "source" for other stories. Now, Dillman's is a mainstream place, so it was inevitable that everyone would cover it, but the same principle applies to smaller places and smaller stories. Just because it was here first does not mean other people lifted content from here...or even that they were aware of its presence here.

Interesting stuff. I agree when it comes to the big money places that open with press releases and free previews to "friends" aka media members but not with the mom and pop spots. We had a little convo on twitter a while back when a taco article came up in Chicago Magazine that featured La Chapparitta, Los Barrilitos and Tierra Caliente amongst others like Big Star. Now obviously no one "found" or spread the word about Big Star, Takito and such, they're media driven to begin with. But I found it ironic that a guy who doesn't specialize in street eats or "roadfood" so to say, found La Chapparitta, Los Barrilitos and Tierra Caliente all on his own. Im a taco connoisseur and would put money up that I've ate at more taquerias then most everyone else but not even I could of just stumbled upon those three one day when deciding to take a ride to write about tacos. Is it just coincidence the writer happened to stumble upon three places loved and promoted by LTH? Probably not, someone told me to just ask him but I didnt have to ask. It was pretty damn obvious. Personally I feel a shout out is always in store if someone or some community driven chat site led you somewhere you're going to write about. Note: Yelp is different, I've never used yelp to find something, Ill use it when I find somewhere I'm intrigued by to see what others have to say.

As far as the Serious Eats piece. Obviously Nick gets alot of info from here, he's admitted that before. He did credit me in the gravy bread info and should of credited Peter who without a doubt introduced 95% of people that know about the MIL, Jim Shoe and Big Baby to them. The haters will say there's nothing left over here but all you need to do is loom at pieces like this Serious Eats and the Chicago Magazine article to see this site still holds sway, haters gonna hate.

Jazzfood wrote:Would be nice if they credited the source, but that's the wild west of the internet and up to the ethics of the writer.

But we're not talking about a blog written by a guy whose training in writing stopped with the required freshman composition class in college. One would hope that Chicago Magazine and Eater would have high enough standards that their trained writers would properly cite sources.

Darren72 wrote:

Jazzfood wrote:Would be nice if they credited the source, but that's the wild west of the internet and up to the ethics of the writer.

But we're not talking about a blog written by a guy whose training in writing stopped with the required freshman composition class in college. One would hope that Chicago Magazine and Eater would have high enough standards that their trained writers would properly cite sources.

I agree that professional courtesy would obligate some to be gracious and recognize -- in text -- the source for unique or unusual data.

But the rule for source citation, if I remember the Freshman comp classes I taught, is that you cite the source only if the source presents unique or truly unusual information. You don't have to cite a source for the date of the Second World War; you do have to cite the source if there's a claim that the Second World War was actually started by aliens. So if there's a restaurant out there, and someone read about it first on LTH, I'm not so sure that qualifies as unique or truly unusual information. Nonetheless, as I said, professional courtesy would dictate, in some cases, that sources be recognized and thanked...but keep in mind too, that a newspaper, magazine or other article is limited as to space, and even if it's on the limitless pages of the internet, it's not a term paper: you can't include footnotes and a bibliography of references, which given the easy access to information that the internet provides, would usually be immense and unwieldy and, largely, unread.

Shady when someone doesn't give props to their source in the food game: small timey blog, Chicago Magazine, or Road Food.

Writers don't need to share their byline, just a simple tip of the hat shows respect and in turn gets respect.

"if you plant ice you're gonna harvest wind."

I think you're all talking past each other, and you're all right. This is a particularly bad example of lazy reporting, which seems to be becoming more common as internet food writing evolves or devolves - however you want to look at it. What makes a food writer today? Someone who eats and can string words together. Sometimes they don't even eat the food they're writing about.

As I see it, one of the main functions of this forum is to share our fortuitous food finds (alliteration!) and bring those experiences to a wider audience. But it only works when there are contributions in the aggregate. No single contributor's opinion holds more value than the others. This naturally provides a wealth of information for food writers, and they would be stupid not to tap into it. We are all here for the same reason.

Personally, I prefer when a writer credits the forum as a whole and not any particular contributor. Most of the regular contributors know each other well, but any new person who happens upon the forum could not care less about the names (and now avatars) that accompany each post. It shouldn't be about who writes a post, but about its intrinsic value. After all, there is a reason we all choose to hang out here collectively instead of starting 1000s of shitty food blogs.

Teresa wrote:I think you're all talking past each other, and you're all right.

I thought we were all agreeing with each other!

boudreaulicious wrote:As I read it, Ms. Pritchard was just recapping Kindelsperger's article--certainly nothing to build a writing career on but not all that surprising these days. What I'm not sure I understand is why she's being vilified for not crediting Peter E.--shouldn't Kindelsperger be the one called to account for that, if anyone? (Though he did link to one of Peter's posts here so at least there's something). I'm all for attribution and almost everything he wrote about could have been sourced from Peter (and others) here but in an article with such brief entries on each item, how do we know where his info came from? Not sure I get the outrage on this one...

In addition, it seems that Kindelsperger's write-up of the gym shoe/jim shoe (which you can get to in a couple of links from Pritchard's article) pre-dates Rene G's home page post by about a month.

Probably by even more, but that's mostly my fault because Peter's piece was ready to go months before Nick's piece was posted but I failed to have the homepage ready in a timely fashion. So Peter's piece had to wait for me.

But that's not the issue for me, though, I did Peter a great disservice. For me, it's a matter of reporting on things in such a lazy, perfunctory manner that you completely ignore the motherlode, original source. In the case of the mother in law, Nick mentions (in the Chicago Magazine piece) that he saw it on Tony Bourdain's show but in that episode Bourdain makes it clear that Peter is the authority on the mother in law (and other south side items). Peter appears in the episode and is with Bourdain when they eat the MIL. So, it wouldn't have taken too much digging to get to the bottom of that source. Instead, what we saw from Ms. Pritchard was more of an entry-level blog post than anything else.

In the end, one can report on the actual subject at hand or one can report on the reporting. In this case, it was reporting on the reporting, and it resulted in a pretty sad and incomplete piece. Instead of doing a little research, Ms. Pritchard visited Serious Eats and called it a day.

=R=

Matt wrote:In addition, it seems that Kindelsperger's write-up of the gym shoe/jim shoe (which you can get to in a couple of links from Pritchard's article) pre-dates Rene G's home page post by about a month.

Call me crazy, but I see a June 2012, not 2013, date on the Kindelsperger article. I wouldn't beat myself up too much about that, Ronnie.

Teresa wrote:

Matt wrote:In addition, it seems that Kindelsperger's write-up of the gym shoe/jim shoe (which you can get to in a couple of links from Pritchard's article) pre-dates Rene G's home page post by about a month.

Call me crazy, but I see a June 2012, not 2013, date on the Kindelsperger article. I wouldn't beat myself up too much about that, Ronnie.

Ronnie is referring to the recent list, I believe, which does link to original post, which was from last year. Peter, of course, has been researching the Jim Shoe for a long, long time. Maybe it's too bad he didn't rush to get it out, but he's a methodical researcher, and I'm sure wanted to gather all data points before going public.

I just don't understand all the angst here. Nick isn't claiming responsibility for discovering the gym/jim shoe nor is he in any way pre-empting Peter's article by writing a few lines about it in a listicle that was published a while ago and was then re-recapped by him and then further advertised by a Chi mag blogger. I'm equally unsure why Ms. Pritchard's blogging about another writer's article is such a heinous crime--obviously it got a whole lot of us to read it!! I don't think the world is less appetizing or interesting because of anything that occurred here. And really unsure why everyone is so worked up about it. Sorry.

Not getting worked up over here, boss.

Teresa wrote: No single contributor's opinion holds more value than the others.

No too sound too cocky or conceited but while all posters are created equal, not all stand on the same pedestal. That's not fair to those who put in the time and legwork and then share top notch finds or pieces. You cant say some random sign up who's posted 23 times in four years has the same say as a Rene G or others. You gotta gain respect to get it.

Teresa wrote:Personally, I prefer when a writer credits the forum as a whole

That's all they should do, but most don't. I'm going to make sure the SE-LTH Jim Shoe connection are linked to each other. I already got an idea as to how. As long as we're talking Serious Eats over here, I might as well share this...Tacos de Canasta at El Conde SA

Da Beef wrote:

Teresa wrote: No single contributor's opinion holds more value than the others.

No too sound too cocky or conceited but while all posters are created equal, not all stand on the same pedestal. That's not fair to those who put in the time and legwork and then share top notch finds or pieces. You cant say some random sign up who's posted 23 times in four years has the same say as a Rene G or others. You gotta gain respect to get it.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. Certain lthers put a ton more effort in, and you don't have to read the forum long before you start to discern who is who. The lth community does a great job of recognizing that contribution. But that is only part of the story. There is a difference between starting a thread on lth and writing a piece for another outlet. While the original lth post may be painstakingly researched, thoughtful, and beautifully written, it is only the start of a conversation. Lth threads evolve with the collective knowledge and input of the forum - many times over the course of years - and there is tremendous value in that. You don't have to have 1000 posts to join the conversation and make a significant contribution, if you so desire.

Your most recent SE piece is a great illustration of what I'm getting at. It is well-researched and written, and just as easily could have been a post on lth. How would things be different if you posted here instead? How would the thread evolve and change? What new information and insight would be added by the forum, not just by heavyweights, but also by those new to the scene? Soon enough, it isn't about the place you found; it is about what everyone else brings to it.

I cannot presume to know what makes those who are both long-time lth contributors and professional writers choose to post in one outlet over the other. To me looking in from the outside, one distinction is the difference between saying, "Hey, look at this awesome thing I found. Go try it and tell me what you think." and "Hey, look at this awesome thing I found. You should go check it out." It's not bad or wrong; it just isn't a dialogue. That's why I see this emphasis on crediting individual lth posters who discover something new as missing the point. (Though I'll grant that Peter's jim shoe piece is a different thing altogether, but that was a feature article.)

Maybe this is all useless navel-gazing on my part and straying way off topic, but I like these sorts of conversations.

Da Beef putting in the work around the South Side in this great taco piece for SE Chicago:

http://chicago.seriouseats.com/2013/10/ ... ?ref=title

Well done, Beef! Great job! And your pix are killer!!

Geo

Katie quote from recent City Council BYOB thread in Fox 32 story

The culinary chat site LTHForum.com is already heating up about a proposed ban on BYOB in Chicago's dry neighborhoods, where merchants are prohibited from serving alcohol.

On the Chicago-based site Katie writes, "I think it's far from a done deal, but it's an issue Chicago diners should be concerned about."

This was the lead story on the Fox 32 evening news after the playoff baseball game finished tonight.

It appears that the quote was from an earlier version of the thread.

Edit 10/14: As Cathy pointed out below, Fox 32 should have attributed the quote to Peter (Rene G).

--
edc

edc wrote:Katie quote from recent City Council BYOB thread in Fox 32 story

The culinary chat site LTHForum.com is already heating up about a proposed ban on BYOB in Chicago's dry neighborhoods, where merchants are prohibited from serving alcohol.

On the Chicago-based site Katie writes, "I think it's far from a done deal, but it's an issue Chicago diners should be concerned about."

This was the lead story on the Fox 32 evening news after the playoff baseball game finished tonight.

--
edc

In some parts of Chicago, BYOB — bring your own bottle — threatens to take on a new meaning.

A proposed ordinance could more appropriately be called "bring your own backlash." The culinary chat site LTHForum.com is already heating up about a proposed ban on BYOB in Chicago's dry neighborhoods, where merchants are prohibited from serving alcohol.

On the Chicago-based site Katie writes, "I think it's far from a done deal, but it's an issue Chicago diners should be concerned about."



Read more: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/23679 ... z2hfPTlvj6

On the Chicago-based site Katie writes, "I think it's far from a done deal, but it's an issue Chicago diners should be concerned about." --- Actually this was Rene G who made this statement.

Could not find anywhere, "Bring your own backlash."

Regards,

Yeah, what the hey?