Question regarding restaurant recommendations?

[cgarner]

I think this should be here, since this is “site talk” if this isn’t the correct forum for this question, please feel free to move it.

This morning, I posted a recommendation for a bakery… I’ve been there once. It just kind of came to me that while these were the most perfect sticky buns I’ve ever had (which I stated) there may be other items that are not of the same quality

I hesitate to ever comment on restaurants which I’ve only ever been once, because one visit is not a fair representation of the restaurant itself.

Is there a general consensus, unofficial “rule” or guideline that most go by for giving recommendations?

[Roger K]

This thread begins to address similar questions that have been going through my head since I joined Chowhound.

Is there a distinction or preference between writing about a dining experience in the "discussion" section vs. the "restaurant quick review" section?

I joined Chowhound to begin sharing my dining experiences. The first review I did was for a restaurant that was not yet listed. I provided the requested information about the place, and since I had eaten there several times I was able to also upload several pictures. Chowhound added the restaurant information and the pictures, but rejected my comments.

As a new member of Chowhound I began searching for other establishments that I was familiar with and would be willing to comment on. Through this search I found numerous listings in the database that were inaccurate or misleading. Many establishments no longer existed. I identified those that had closed and provided correct and more updated information on many others.

When I attempted to resubmit my comments on that first restaurant, they were rejected again. I wrote to Chowhound to ask why. I was told:
"We all have restaurants we've fallen in love with,... one of the goals on Chowhound is for people to share the food experiences that they're passionate about... In some cases, though, we see where a person's love for a favorite restaurant leads them to go beyond sharing their experiences to essentially promoting the restaurant... While we welcome your participation, we have to ask that you take a step back from posting about that specific place."

Well, I took "a step back" and simply provided a star rating and a single short headline. That was rejected too.

There have been other listings where I HAVE been able to provide a star rating and a simple headline. I don't think a headline, however, can provide the depth of information about an experience that would be available in a more detailed description.

I've noticed that some members have chosen to confine their comments to the "discussion" threads. Is this the intended or preferred norm or expected by moderators and members?

The 37 pages listing restaurants in the Albany, NY area have only 14 restaurants (that's less than one page) with star ratings and each of those 14 only received a single review. It's difficult to rely upon a restaurant's rating if only one member has commented on it. Sometimes a discussion(s) listed below the restaurant may provide additional information, but many times it's not really a review but an answer to a question or a comment on a topic that happens to mention the referenced restaurant.

There have even been instances of the discussion mentioning that a restaurant is closed or renamed, but a member would not know that from looking at the page that provides the details, photos and "Quick Review" since it does not appear that Chowhound monitors followup on such comments. I wouldn't expect that monitors would necessarily read all these comments that closely - but they did manage to notice my comment to that effect and delete it.

Trust me, I'm not trying to be snarky. I simply see some inconsistencies that I don't understand as a new member. I'd appreciate further guidance on this topic and would like to see if others have had similar experiences and are looking for a opportunity to express themselves.

Thank you.
p.s.
The pictures I posted for that first restaurant don't show under the photo tab of my profile. But I am identified on the restaurant's page as the person who provided them.

[nsxtasy]

>> The 37 pages listing restaurants in the Albany, NY area have only 14 restaurants (that's less than one page) with star ratings and each of those 14 only received a single review. It's difficult to rely upon a restaurant's rating if only one member has commented on it.

Are you aware that there are many, many comments and reviews on restaurants in the discussion section of Chowhound, that are not linked to the restaurant listing section? They only get linked to the listing if, when the post is being created, the poster clicks on the question whether it is a review of a specific restaurant.

[Roger K]

Thanks for responding, nsxtasy. Yes, I'm aware that there are many comments & reviews in the discussion section. That was why I asked if it was the intended or preferred norm to submit those comments, and particularly reviews, in the discussion section rather than on the restaurant "Quick Review" page.

I wasn't aware that checking the box asking if this is a review, linked the comment to the restaurant. I thought it determined whether the comments would be posted on the restaurant's "Quick Review" page or alternatively within the discussion pages. The only time I tried checking the box when adding comments, which I considered a review, my posting was deleted.

Your response, however, seems to underscore my observation. Someone looking to find an easy and quick listing of comments on a particular, or even various, restaurants will not find such information on the restaurant pages. A more time consuming reading of numerous discussion postings is required to potentially find the information desired.

I've noticed that some regular members when answering a person's question have even provided links to other search resources such as Yelp or Urbanspoon while referring to a Chowhound source as being lengthy and a challenge to find. Obviously, Chowhound is a great place to carry on discussions. But I'm finding it cumbersome when looking to contribute, find and share information that doesn't necessarily require further discussion.

Thank you again for your input.

[nsxtasy]

>> Chowhound is a great place to carry on discussions. But I'm finding it cumbersome when looking to contribute, find and share information that doesn't necessarily require further discussion.

Well, you need to understand that Chowhound is organized differently from other websites. Other sites such as those you mention are designed such that all comments get listed under a restaurant's listing, which is one way of doing it. OTOH Chowhound is discussion-based. Sometimes a discussion is about a particular restaurant, but often it is broader than that. A person can ask for recommendations for a particular kind of restaurant in a particular location, and most of the responses will describe multiple places that might fit the requester's need. Chowhound OTOH is designed such that a question can be asked and answered, with as many different responses as people wish to post. You can still do a search on Chowhound to find what people have said about a restaurant, but they're not organized the way other sites are. Personally, I find Chowhound more useful than those other sites because so many of the responses here are more knowledgeable and often put a restaurant into perspective by comparing it with others within the same conversation, which is an advantage you don't find on a site where comments are only about a particular restaurant. I find it far more useful when I'm not sure whether I want to go to a particular restaurant and there are lots more places I would like to consider. I see it as a strength and advantage of Chowhound over those other sites. But the internet offers a lot of different ways of organizing information and you can choose the site(s) you feel are the best for your needs.

[Roger K]

>>OTOH Chowhound is discussion-based. Sometimes a discussion is about a particular restaurant, but often it is broader than that.<<

That is what I'm learning as a new memeber. If I keep that in mind as I peruse the site, I agree with you that it is quite helpful. I also concur that the responses tend to be more knowledgeable and the opportunity to compare restaurants is more prevalent.

Btw, I've deciphered the technique of linking the discussion to the restaurants being discussed. The Chowhound folks have an app that attempts to automatically identify establishments in their database that are mentioned in the discussions. When it does, it will create the link below the quick review page of a restaurant. However, when the app is not able to make the association, the user can click on the "Manage Your Links" bar beneath your comments and begin to type the name of a restaurant. The database will present possible establishments for you to select from. If no restaurant listed matches your search you have the option of adding an additional restaurant to the database for the discussion to later link with.

Of course, this requires a more concerted effort on the part of the users, but it further enhances the usefulness of Chowhound. I guess it's the best of both worlds.

[rworange]

Roger,

Welcome to Chowhound and many thanks for keeping the restaurant records updated in your area. I know if I am traveling in that area I would appreciate that. This site is only as good content-wise as posters make it.

I also applaud your flagging your actual reviews so they show up on the restaurant record. I wish more Chowhounds would do that as it would make the restaurant records more useful, IMO.

I am not sure why though from the restaurant record you can't enter more that the star rating and headline.

I sometimes do dual reports. A longer one on the forum with photos. Unfortunately the software will not accept photos at this time on the restaurant record.

I may do a separate, actual quick review on the restaurant record with star ratings. The problem I have with that is those reviews can't be edited or deleted like other sites such as Yelp.

A restaurant I really loved and gave a five star quick review took a nose dive when the partners changed and my glowing review and rating remains. It makes me look less credible should someone read that outdated report.

While I can understand the two hour editing window on a discussion, I don't really understand why the restaurant records which are uncommented by others can't be modified.

That being said, in areas with pretty much unchanging restaurants, I'll add a quick review to give the restaurant section a bit more substance.

[cgarner]

A restaurant I really loved and gave a five star quick review took a nose dive when the partners changed and my glowing review and rating remains. It makes me look less credible should someone read that outdated report.
********************************************************************************
this is exactly why I always look at how long ago the review was posted and then check the area's board for further discussion. I love that about this place!

[The Chowhound Team]

Send us an email with a link, and we'll remove that review for you.

[Roger K]

As seen from the Chowhound Team reply to yours and cgarner's comments, there is a way to deal with the concern the two of you expressed. I was reviewing the FAQs and see that they cover this possibility. But it's difficult to keep all those Qs in mind when they don't occur frequently.

One procedure I learned that is not in the FAQs is that "If you think there's someone else's review on Yelp that people should read, you can link to it, because copying it here would be a copyright violation. But if you're linking to your own review, we'd ask that you not use an outbound link, but rather copy the information here so that people can read and respond to it within the thread."

This is good for members to know.

[Jacquilynne]

Chowhounds are not professional restaurant reviewers. There's no expectation that you visit a place multiple times, hold off from reporting on newly opened places (though we don't allow reviews of soft-opens and previews) or not recommend a place because you haven't tried most of the menu.

A tip that a certain place has perfect sticky buns is an awesome tip. For someone looking for great sticky buns, that's all they need to know.

If youv'e only tried one thing on a menu, or you've tried everything and one thing is awesome and everything else is mediocre (and this is more common than you might imagine), then it's best if your posts make that clear, but it's no reason to hold off on posting about the place. Many of the best, most beloved houndish restaurants were first discovered by someone who tried one awesome thing there and posted about it.

-- Jacquilynne, Community Manager for Chowhound

[squid kun]

>we don't allow reviews of soft-opens and previews

I suggest we reconsider this rule. "Soft openings" can go on for weeks nowadays before restaurants finally announce their official openings. Chowhound can hold off if it wants, but for high-profile places there will be tons of online commentary by the time we get in our first permissible word.

[Melanie Wong]

I suspect she means "friends and family" openings and press previews that involve free food that often is prepared to a different standard than served to the paying public.

[Jacquilynne]

We don't allow reviews of "soft open" or "friends and family" meals, which aren't open to the general public or don't offer the regular menu at regular prices. There are two somewhat opposite reasons for this:

1) we strive to represent the experience of the average customer, and such meals often represent the restaurant's best efforts to impress, which may not translate to the same experience for average customers during regular service;

2) it's not fair to the restaurant to review a meal when the restaurant is still working out the kinks and is not expecting to be publicly reviewed for those efforts.

So, if a restaurant is pretending not to be fully open, but is, in fact, welcoming the general public AND is charging full prices for their regular menu, then comments are welcome, but if any of those things isn't true, we'd ask that people hold off.

[Servorg]

"Is there a general consensus, unofficial “rule” or guideline that most go by for giving recommendations?"

In a word - No. Since this site is purely "user" generated each of us posts according to our own standards. Whether those are rigorous or totally lax. It's up to you. But you will end up getting to know who you generally trust over time to give what you see as quality recommendations.