context
Some say that it’s whining to comment on journalism, and that clueless bloggers should be left unmolested. That we in the industry should sit on our hands and shut up, take what is handed to us and don’t question the “authorities”.
I say, bullshit. As far as I am concerned it’s fair to wonder out loud when you see some real smart folk say some really silly shit.
Here is a great example.
La Alborada–4 stars according to HT. This is a fantastic example of having very little sense of context. To suggest that a grocery store (even a very good one) ought to be given the same rating as 112, is not only silly, it’s blatantly ignorant.
Let me explain why.
Take by way of example an Olympic diving judge. They don’t judge every dive solely on it’s merits, it’s judged in context. Meaning that a dive will be given a certain degree of difficulty, because they take into consideration that some maneuvers are harder to execute than others. The effect is this: if you are attempting the most difficult dive, and execute it pretty well, and I am doing a belly flop, even though I execute perfectly, you will be awarded a higher score.
You don’t have to re-invent the wheel. The Mobile Guide has a list of objective ways to measure a restaurant. It’s not great. But it’s a great place to start. For example by the standards that the Mobile Guide, a grocery store could be eligible for one star, because it provides “counter service” and that relates to a different degree of difficulty.
For too many these are just details, and the details don’t matter. I go into highly rated restaurants around town, and find dirty water glasses, stained menus, and random bullshit all over the place. Even more troubling is the idea that “reviewers” think their opinions ought to super cede any objective standards.
It’s the details that matter, even in Minnesota it’s not enough to just be nice, you have to perform, and a high rating, should mean high performance by objective standards.
15 Comments to “context”
Leave a Reply
You are one angry mofo.
It’s an interesting question, because as a consumer of restaurant ratings, I certainly don’t assume that a 4 star counter service equates to a 4 star high dining.
I take the stars as being relative to the concept. So a 4 star grocery store with a deli nails what they’re trying to do. A 4 star burger joint nails that.
But does having 4 stars tossed around devalue the concept of the “perfect score?” Interesting question.
I have to agree with Jason. Maybe these bloggers or sites (yelp, etc) should create categories and sub-categories.
I used to get annoyed when a cheap $8 bottle of wine got 92pts from Parker when one of my favorite $25 bottles got a mere 89pts when the former had none of the depth and balance of the latter.
It was explained that the $8 scored highly when compared to other wines in the $10 or less bracket. Similarly, a Toyota Corolla is very highly rated, higher than a BMW 3-series. Is it a better car overall? Dunno, depends if you need to get from A to B, or if you like “driving”.
But I also agree with Shef, it is surely annoying.
when i write in the morning when i wake up too early i shouldn’t use so many when’s when they’re not necessary.
when will i every learn.
Dear Mr. Shefzilla-
1) I agree with Dee Wayne.
2) I agree with Jason/Jphan.
I don’t think there is any danger of a consumer confusing the Guide Michelin, or the Mobile guide, with the Heavy Table blog. Won’t happen.
The Guide has their niche carved out-we know what they stand for, what kinds of restaurants they review, and what a star or two or three means from them.
Most other rating systems, meh. They’re just not the same thing. I really don’t think anyone will ever assume a 3 star rating of is on the same stratosphere as the 3 stars given to The French Laundry. We’re smarter than that.
As far as highly rated restaurants around town which have lots of flaws-I know you know by now that this area almost always gives reviews much more complementary than other big cities. It drove me nuts for the first few months I lived here, and then I figured out to water down nearly every local critic’s review to reach my “truth”.
Boy, thanks for confirming my previous post. I guess this is why in the chef’s crowd you are know as the biggest dick and the worst person to work for in MN.
Dear Jeff-
Nice post. Excellent grammar, stellar language.
So, you know Stewart personally, you’ve actually met him, had a conversation with him, you’ve actually worked for him? You speak from experience?
Or did you just disagree with what he said and your underdeveloped social skills made you mad at him for it?
I take back what I said…Jeff Katz…you are one angry mofo!
I thoroughly enjoyed working for Stew and Heidi. Set the bar so high for themselves and the people around them. I can tell you in general that the folks who didn’t like working for them were lazy, passionless, or comfortable with being “fine” not “great.”
Jeff Katz (I doubt this is your real name) labeling Stewart Woodman as the “biggest dick and worst person to work for in MN” is, like, so 2006.
I have, right here on my desk, the official “Chef’s Crowd List of Biggest Dick (not biggest dicked, mind you) MN Chefs 2009″ and he’s not even in the top 5. So there.
Hee–love how “Jeff Katz” dislikes Shefzilla so much, but bothers to read the blog. Reminds me of college friends who were declared socialists, but read the New York Times “to keep an eye on the enemy.”
Off-topic, I’m coming in tomorrow night and looking forward to it!
Hope I don’t get yelled at by the mean Shef if I order weird.
Jane are you calling Jeff Katz a socialist?
Nah, just giving him shit for coming to the blog of a guy he can’t stand. What a waste of his time.
… a guy he SUPPOSEDLY can’t stand…