Ridculous Crap that is the Restaurant “Rater”
Is any rating system in the Twin Cities worse than the Restaurant Rater on Msp Magazine?
According to the editors at Msp mag, the 5-8 club merits an 87, and the rating for Alma is 87.4.
How the F@CK do they figure that? They base the 5-8 rating on two scores. The first from Mpls.St.Paul Magazine “Heritage Score” score of 90. What the f@ck is a heritage score? Seemingly nothing more than some random assessment by who knows. The second is based on a review by James Norton in 2008. As far as James Norton, love his blog, but if you put a big ass plate of messy food in front of the guy you’ll have a friend for life. Based on his writing, his palate doesn’t exactly tilt toward complexity, subtlety, or sophistication. When you need something on a stick, he’s your man, but Piccolo has a 2.5 star rating by his blogs’ standards. Having said that, what Msp does is read reviews and determine what they think the reviewer would have awarded as a score. Say what?
Alma is rated at 87.4, of course no “Heritage Score”, the reviews also include a low score from random and silly blog that has very little if any credibility in reviewing, that award Alma a 70. What The F@ck?
Why do some reviews get included with some restos and not others? One can only assume that the editors feel that 5-8 is essentially on par with Alma, and so they weigh the scores to reflect that. It’s an affront to intelligent thought, heck it’s even an affront to stupid thinkin’. But worse it is a veiled way for editors to say what they think without having the balls to say it.
I expect more from Stephanie Marsh, the current food editor. She didn’t start it, but she continues it. I suppose you can argue that fewer and fewer read Msp to get real food info, there are far more credible sources these days. But in a recent article Andrew Zimmern writes about how hard the resto business is, it certainly isn’t made any easier with the sort of ridiculous shit that Msp hangs out there with the “Restaurant Rater“.
Forget to enter the year of the article: it was 1990
I think the argument is that you give your best critics short shrift.
Peter,
There is no question that you have been working hard for years to write important and meaningful reviews. That your team is committed, and that you have written careful reviews about my work in the past.
None of that has anything to do with the subject matter. Which specifically relates to the Rater. Not one person from your magazine has commented on the fact that it is flawed. It is simply silly to attribute different ratings than the critic themselves did. That is what the rater does. That has been established.
Msp is an important voice in our community, and I appreciate you taking the time to comment here.
You can circle the wagons, you can attack me, I have opened myself for criticism–it doesn’t scare me. Whatever the outcome though, eventually your mag will either improve the product, or drop it. In its current form it only hurts our industry, and our community.
Thanks, Shef. My point, as Kevin accurately captured, is let’s be careful not to toss out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. As the other saying goes, “garbage in, garbage out” and if we first don’t discuss the reliability of the critics, we can’t then move to ratings scores.
I’m going to have to agree with you Chef!
Kevin,
I don’t think it’s fair to give a place like the Nook a 50 simply because it isn’t fine dining. To someone not familiar with the restaurant scene, you are making a great spot look mediocre.
“I don’t think it’s fair to give a place like the Nook a 50 simply because it isn’t fine dining. To someone not familiar with the restaurant scene, you are making a great spot look mediocre.”
If people are entirely unfamiliar with the restaurant scene, they’ll assume the Nook is on par with the very best restaurants in the cities.
Otherwise, they can read the critical reviews, look at the menu, and realize the Nook represents a solid value for the money. No knowledge of the restaurant scene required.
I would also think this would give more value to what Norton and those folks do, as there would be more breathing room between the various neighborhood eateries.
Hello Zilla, this subject matter deserves a re-post… and some pressure to change
Love ya!