"Primitive Cooks"?

[ElsieDee]

None too sure how I feel about being called a "primitive cook" in that there advertising that you're using to sell space. That one about "Self Service Ad Buying" where you offer an assessment of the site users as follows:

"CHOW.com: serving sophisticated eaters and primitive cooks."

Isn't that a slap in the face to all of the incredible cooks who contribute so much knowledge and free, relevant, keyword-loaded content for your site?

[cowboyardee]

I imagine a site full of beginner cooks is just far more appealing to advertisers than a site full of knowledgeable, expert cooks. Doesn't particularly matter whether it's accurate or not.

[Phood]

Where are the moderators when we need them

[Servorg]

Inanity is not against CH site rules...

[Glencora]

They're trying to create a brand and they don't care if it has anything to do with reality. (IMO)

[hsk]

Well I think there is a difference between "sophisticated eaters and primitive cooks" and "sophisticated eaters but primitive cooks", and OP misquoted it.

Whenever I look at the chow tips/home cooking/cookware etc. there is interesting information intended for primitive cooks like myself (like to cook from scratch but I'm not professional and would like to learn more and be better at it). FWIW I consider myself a sophisticated eater (by that I mean well-traveled and try pretty much anything and enjoy 99%).

[HillJ]

FWIW I consider myself a sophisticated eater
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FWIW hsk, I think you hit the CH nail on the head with that simple comment.

[FoodPopulist]

Let's look at the entire text:

"CHOW is the site for sophisticated eaters but primitive cooks; for food enthusiasts who want insight on the basics and inspiration for the not-so basics. They come to CHOW because it’s different—with a unique, sometimes edgy, and always informative perspective on good food. Our premium content and often irreverent point of view gets people talking. CHOW provides advice on what to eat, where to go, what to buy, and what to make. "

First off, it's talking about the entire site, not just the forums. I would guess that the majority of eyeballs visiting the site are not people who spent most of their time at chow.com in the forums. If your bookmarks on your browser include a link to the forums but not the main website, you are not part of the target audience. The non-forum content generated by the site is not aimed at sophisticated, well-educated cooks.

In practical terms, what this means is that the website clientele is such that it would make much more sense to see an ad for Rachael Ray kitchenware than it would to see an ad for a home sous vide system.

[HillJ]

Wow talk about differing opinions. Very interesting. Try convincing a CH from 2002 of that. Ha!

[rworange]

I've never seen the whole paragraph. i guess I think of the Chow side more toward the "inspiration for the not-so basics". It certainly makes me have a clearer picture of what Chow is all about.

Actually if you look at the web traffic, the forums are where the majority of eyeballs are going. That makes sense because of the static nature of a web magazine. There are a limited number of articles, videos, recipes daily. On a weekly basis everything new would probably take an hour to read or watch.

The forums are dynamic and ever changing. I've long since given up trying to read everything on the forums.

That is why the target advertising audiance always confused me. it would seem that the larger and more diverse audiance would be more of a money maker if that became the target.

While I still think the word 'primitive' isn't the best at least I finally get it. Thanks. When this comes up again (and it will) I'll link to your post to clarify it.

If the forums didn't exist and there was only Chow and I didn't know a thing about it, just seeing that blurb would more likey have me moving on which is too bad. because the Chow recipes are the most interesting part of that site to me. I'm not much of a cook but the last word I'd ever identify myself with is primitive.

[FoodPopulist]

I think it makes sense if you take "primitive" to mean "unschooled", so the users are more likely to be people who cook without the benefit of formal culinary education.

Actually reading the threads in this forum, I think the term "primitive" is accurate on several levels because there are people asking some fairly basic questions. Most users who cook could be described as primitive cooks who gain knowledge from culinary bodhisattvas deigning to converse with lesser beings. Of course, there is also some conversation that starts out at a high level, but I don't think it is the dominant tone of culinary discourse here.

[HillJ]

Actually I'd enjoy knowing what the writer you coined that phrase here did mean, rather than guess.

I'm a professional and I don't come to CH to work.

[rworange]

From Webster's dicionary

'Synonyms: crude, low, rude, rudimentary"

A better would could have been used.

[Servorg]

Instead of picking and choosing lets look at all of them:

Definition of PRIMITIVE
1
a : not derived : original, primary b : assumed as a basis; especially : axiomatic <primitive concepts>
2
a : of or relating to the earliest age or period : primeval <the primitive church> b : closely approximating an early ancestral type : little evolved <primitive mammals> c : belonging to or characteristic of an early stage of development : crude, rudimentary <primitive technology> d : of, relating to, or constituting the assumed parent speech of related languages <primitive Germanic>
3
a : elemental, natural <our primitive feelings of vengeance — John Mackwood> b : of, relating to, or produced by a people or culture that is nonindustrial and often nonliterate and tribal <primitive art> c : naive d (1) : self-taught, untutored <primitive craftsmen> (2) : produced by a self-taught artist <a primitive painting>

[HillJ]

Still would be nice to know from the writer what their intent was...not the dictionary.

[Servorg]

I like to think that it wasn't meant to demean anyone. Why would a site that is looking to add readership/contributors want to do that? But for a lot of folks these days looking for and then taking offense has become a national pastime.

[HillJ]

Not questioning the motivation but rather asking for a direct reply. Why guess?

[Servorg]

Beauty, and meaning, are in the eye of the beholder. Just because the author might have been thinking one thing or another certainly doesn't preclude a lot of other equally valid conclusions.

[HillJ]

Certainly true. But there is also learning straight from the horses mouth.

[rworange]

Yes. While I get the 'and' the fact that this has initiated more than one protest topic shows that some people didn't get it.

Personally, as I said before, if the word 'to' had been used, I wouldn't have looked at it twice. Someone who is writing this stuff professionally should consider all the definitions. Anyone who approved this should have as well.

[HillJ]

I'd still enjoy hearing from the author rather than speculate. Then we'll know context and intent without guessing.

[paulj]

Why not just guess the most charitable intent? This isn't a legal document, or even a policy statement. So intent does not really matter.

One way to interpret it is as opposite corners of a rectangle that is meant to cover the whole range of participants. It's more of poetical phrase than a truly meaningful one.

sophisticated eaters ---- sophisticated cooks
primitive (basic) eaters --- primitive cooks

Another way to think of it - what is 'primitive cooking'? Is it hearth and campfire cooking? Is it boiling water? http://www.primitiveways.com/primitiv...
Google search on 'primitive cooks' turns up nothing except this thread, and 'primitive cooking'.

[HillJ]

I suspect for the same reason who are questioning my question-curious.

[Servorg]

http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/726389

[HillJ]

Wow, that's an interesting chat from intended link to link among very experienced CH's. There's appears to be plenty to be miffed about isn't there.

[ElsieDee]

Thanks for the link to that other thread (and the linked threads therein); I did search for "primitive cooks" before posting and didn't find that thread, else I wouldn't have started a new one.

Fascinating reading, eh?

[Servorg]

I always thought that if you looked at the whole quote, and not just that smaller part of it, that there wasn't anything particularly pejorative meant by the phrase. Rather it was simply pointing out the breadth of the participants who can come to Chow/Chowhound and enjoy the give and take while still learning something.

[rworange]

Nope.

If that was the interpretation then it would be 'to' not 'and'. I don't participte in Home Cooking often and I find it offensive and that whoever wrote that was not in touch with this site ... or even reads this site.

[HillJ]

Especially when you see CH's recipes posted in the CHOW magazine and contests run by CHOW are engaging current and new CH's.

[Servorg]

I think if the word had been "or" then I would agree. But "and" is not the same thing. It intimates "inclusive" without necessarily meaning "all inclusive."

[rworange]

Even if that is so, it was a dumb thing to say, IMO. I'm a primitive cook and I hardly think that an advertiser would give a damn about me ... and they shoudn't since I'm not even going to look at their ads.

It would seem that they would be more interested in people who give a damn about cooking and want to scoop up whatever they are selling. Then again, maybe it is trying to reach the "As Seen on TV" audiance. I just bought some sort of wonder meatloaf pan that I saw in an informercial and I'm considering the no shell boiled egg thingy.