HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >

Restaurant Owner Posts Removed (Split from New England board)

a
akammer Jan 20, 2010 10:55 AM

I recently saw a post from the owner of Piatti disputing some of the points in an earlier post as well as a response to his note. Is there any explanation why these were removed? I look to these types of websites to be informed and for multiple perspectives on new restaurants, existing restaurants, etc., but if posts are removed, I feel that the integrity of the site is compromised.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. BiscuitBoy RE: akammer Jan 20, 2010 11:36 AM

    I'm glad posts like that get removed. You can always tell a schill or restaurant owner from their lack of other posts, and typically the reviews always claim the food was "amazing." I rely on multiple, unbiased, independent posts like I find here on Chow to tell me where to spend my food dollar. If the owner has an issue, he should up his game, it's that simple. Good job Chow Team

    6 Replies
    1. re: BiscuitBoy
      a
      akammer RE: BiscuitBoy Jan 20, 2010 12:01 PM

      Biscuit -
      I couldn't agree with you more. I don't want an owner posting on these sites to tell me how wonderful the food is and blah blah blah. I do believe it's the Chow Team's responsibility to remove any post where an owner is marketing to the readers. However, I do believe an owner (or anyone for that matter) has a right to correct misinformation. The owner of Piatti had clarified information regarding the pricing mentioned in an earlier post. I see nothing wrong with that. Anyone should be allowed to defend misinformation but not opinions. Each poster is allowed their opinion, whether it's a good one or a bad one. That's the beauty of discussion boards.

      1. re: akammer
        f
        FoodieJim RE: akammer Jan 20, 2010 02:02 PM

        I agree with this. The solution is to edit, not delete. If I come on and post that a restaurant overcharged me and I warn others to stay away, and the owner appears to explain the charges and state that his food is excellent, the former point should be permitted to stand but the latter point should be removed. Not sure what happened in the instance discussed in this thread, but if the owner isn't allowed to tell his side of the story, then we will never know. This site (or any site for that matter) loses credibility if it does not allow people against whom charges have been levied to come on and state their side of the story.

        1. re: FoodieJim
          shaogo RE: FoodieJim Jan 20, 2010 02:16 PM

          This is interesting. I'm a restaurateur. We're not allowed to say a thing about our own places, nor about our competitors. The strict guidelines are in the second post in this thread:

          http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/367605

          It's up to 'hounds to take all posts with a grain of salt. When I see something posted I think is unreasonable or pretty far from the general consensus, I often go to the poster's profile to see if this is part of a pattern. It sometimes is, but in most cases it'll be a posters first post, the poster's account having been set up merely to insinuate a less-than-objective opinion into a conversation.

          1. re: FoodieJim
            s
            sbxstr RE: FoodieJim Jan 20, 2010 02:18 PM

            Now I have to question further WTF is going on with this board. My posts questioning the removal of the principal's post have also been removed. Somebody has a thin skin out there. The post in question was clearly identified as being from a principal. Please tell us why he shouldn't have a voice in defending his investment against anonymous assaults. I want this place to survive, but, of course, on it's merits - its conveniently located in a part of town with few options. My wife and I had lunch there last Wednesday. Our food was good. It's not Max Fish but neither was the tab. How about a litle fairness here?

            1. re: sbxstr
              d
              DAMASO RE: sbxstr Jan 20, 2010 02:51 PM

              .

              1. re: sbxstr
                shaogo RE: sbxstr Jan 20, 2010 02:57 PM

                If you go back to the original thread the CH team explains why they split this thread between boards.

                By all means, if you had a good meal at the restaurant we were talking about, go back to the original thread and post about what you had and how it was good. Hey, the restaurant needs all the help it can get!

        2. The Chowhound Team RE: akammer Jan 20, 2010 05:40 PM

          As Shaogo mentioned, we have fairly restrictive guidelines about where a restaurant is allowed to post, outlined here:
          http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/3676...

          We're not here to provide restaurants a platform to correct their customer service areas, nor to play he-said/she-said in regards to negative reports. It's just not the nature of our site.

          2 Replies
          1. re: The Chowhound Team
            s
            sbxstr RE: The Chowhound Team Jan 21, 2010 03:15 PM

            You can move posts to different boards at your will, but don't you think a note in the original board that such action has been taken would be appropriate?

            1. re: sbxstr
              The Chowhound Team RE: sbxstr Jan 21, 2010 03:46 PM

              When we split threads, we do try always to leave a note in the thread where the split digression originated, with a link to the newly created thread. We posted such a note in the Piatti thread this conversation was split from at the time it was split yesterday: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/6794...

          Show Hidden Posts