What's your criteria in reviewing a restaurant?
Cooking, and everything that goes along with being a 'foodie' - dining out, planning trips or vacations around the restaurants, pre-ordering cookbooks 9 months out, spending a lot of money on kitchen gadgets etc, DVRs full of cooking shows and Top Chef, has become such a passionate hobby for me.
I unfortunately live in Western Massachusetts,which isn't exactly a culinary hotbed. There are a few great places, sure, but it's chain restaurant heavy and most of the local places do the same uninspired dishes like baked stuff scrod and chicken marsala. I went into a Vietnamese restaurant and asked for a banh mi and the server never heard of one before; the Lebonese place is always advertising specials for NY Strip; a Greek place in CT made me a gyro with store bought tzaziki. The great restaurants, I feel, are big fish in a small pond and while good I'm not sure where they'd stack up in a bigger city.
I like reviewing restaurants but my friends and family are constantly telling me I'm way too critical, that the area I live in isn't a New York or San Francisco. I guess I view things on one scale - while I have never been to a Thomas Keller restaurant, lets just pretend for conversations sake it's a 5 star dining experience like everyone says. Well how would you rate my local restaurant that uses all Sysco foodservice products and hasn't changed it's menu in forever? I don't know if it's fair to use for comparison sake but look at movie reviews. There's a very easy ratings scale so while Dumb and Dumber is still one of my favorite movies, it's only getting a one star review from critics.
I understand food is subjective and I don't look down at people who eat at Applebees or the local family owned place that hasn't changed the menu in 20 years. You like what you like, and sometimes for a lot of people, including my family growing up, even going to a chain is a big deal in terms of fast casual convenience and price.
I was inspired to write this post after reviewing a new donut shop in the area. I haven't necessarily sought to snuff out the best donuts in the country but have happened to have visited The Doughnut Plant in NYC, Dough in Brooklyn, Top Pot in Seattle, Voodoo in Portland. I feel like I've had a decent donut. They have different flavored glazed donuts here and none of three we tried delivered on the flavors promised and the donuts themselves, in terms of shape, size, and 'mouthfeel' were very similar to Dunkin Donuts. The apple fritter had crunch but no fluffy, pillowy middle. Now how do you review this place? Where I live, most people wouldn't care about anything I'm saying. And is there such thing as a bad donut? They weren't inedible. But I've tasted some of the best donuts in the country and these pale in comparison. There's a part of me that feels awful writing something bad about a place that seems so popular.
I also had a recent dining experience at Talde in Brooklyn that let me down, but after rethinking things, while the food wasn't necessarily bad, I felt the flavors were very average for a guy on Top Chef. Is that unfair to say?
What's fair grounds for criticism in your reviews?
I always base my "critique" on the restaurant category; always compare oranges to oranges
(for example) A good chain-restaurant gyro might get the same grade as a lobster mille-feuille at a high-end restaurant.
Always be fair and consistent.
In the case of the apple fritter, you could simply write something:
"The apple fritter was good, nice crunch and flavor, but I like them more fluffy"
People who follow you and read your critiques will learn to know your own taste and they will know that if you like something (or not) that they might either like or dislike it.
If there are only mediocre/chain restaurants in your area, why write about them ?
I go to a lot of restaurants that are mediocre (for various reasons) and do not feel the urge to write about them.
They do not want to achieve any sort of foodie status, and are just happy to have a regular clientele.
Restaurants, in the words of a former restaurant critic (paid, newspaper), set their standards by the way they price themselves. If you're the most expensive restaurant in town you ought to be the best. But while I can enjoy a good gyro as much as that lobster pastry, there's a lot more work involved in one than in the other unless they're making their own pita and gyro log. This is a really complicated subject.
Bad food is not the server's fault. Neither are dirty toilets. But readers - I assume you are writing these to be read, right? - need to know that one particular server or the lot of them have Attitude and/or that the restrooms were atrocious. For folks like us, food is probably the leading thing. But I know folks for whom a great server will make cottage cheese and pineapple taste like ambrosia. And I know even more folks who wouldn't even enter a spot that they understood to be less than immaculate.
And that's not even going into the subject of noise, which these days probably oughta be a consideration like decor and service.
Hmm. Good question.
I'd say content, first of all. Is the eggplant parm good eggplant parm? How's the eggplant? The sauce? The cheese?
Then style. Do they fry basil leaves and capers and sprinkle a few on top? Or is it glopped on my plate?
Then execution. Is the service good? Is the price a fair value for the what they invested in the content, construction and presentation of the meal?
I'd say those are my basics.
BTW...Western Mass isn't Manhattan but it isn't an abyss either. I don't know where you're located (how westerly you are) but there's some cool stuff in Pittsfield, etc.
Well, I ain't a "foodie", I'm a 'hound, possibly even a food dork, but certainly not a "foodie". I think writing reviews, for most folks, is a rather pretentious endeavor. Nonetheless, if I wanna help other 'hounds out with my reflections on a place at which I have dined, I have three fundamental rules.
First, to paraphrase Ol' Bill Clinton, "It's the food, Stupid". I don't give a sh*t about the decor or how dirty the bathroom is. Lemme have a chance to just tell you about the chow.
Second, and related to the first, I have on no more than two or three occasions had less than adequate service. Never let the bitterness of a poor server jade your palate.
Third, if you gotta indulge your inner critic and offer something to the rest of us, do it in a way that is interesting to read. Make it a narrative. Proofread. Use dialogue. Be clever. And, by all means, never use "meh" to describe anything.
I don't know - a dirty bathroom would give me pause on how the food is prepared. If they can't be bothered to ensure the bathroom is relatively tidy, what are they doing with my food?
As for decor, bright fluorescent lights at night aren't my thing, nor are lights so dim you need a flashlight or to put the menu practically at your nose to be able to see what is written. Noise level is also part of the surroundings, and if it's deafening in there and you can't hear your dining partner(s), that factors into what I might write about a restaurant. Ambiance is not why I'm there, but it is a factor.
LindaWhit, I completely agree with you regarding the bathrooms. Those are open to the customers and something they use and see. If a restaurant does not mind if their bathrooms are filthy and a customer can see that, I seriously wonder what the kitchen or walk-ins are like since the customer cannot see those places within the restaurant.