Does the meal have to be amazing?
Noticed this trend?
"The food was good but it wasn't amazing."
Are we so jaded, entitled, dare I say SNOBBY in our own hipster doofus foody ways that if it's not AMAZING it's not worth commenting on?
If that's the case so be it. (Many might refer to me as one of the above.)
I always like to hear about amazing meals.
But I probably eat more often at holes in the wall and Mom and Pops and I'd love to read more posts about these places without the expectation of "the best."
As someone who reads to gain information about a restaurant, it's really useful to know how good a place is. I'd much rather some one provide a nuanced distinction rather than a black and white good or bad.
I've been to some holes in the wall or Mom and Pop places that are AMAZING; just because they're not fancy doesn't mean that they aren't inherently capable of producing superlative cooking. In some cases, these "simpler" places can surpass fancy looking restaurants.
I have always found it very hard to ding a restaurant because the food wasn't mind blowing.
I tend to highlight what I thought really worked, and play down the misses.
I don't have the dining budget of a food critic, so experiencing the restaurant 3-4 times before I state my opinion isn't going to happen over a short period of time.
I also adjust my expectations, and have been known to enjoy dining in chains.
<I have always found it very hard to ding a restaurant because the food wasn't mind blowing.>
So true. A local roadhouse just opened a new store a few blocks from home. Talking it over with friends, no one could think of a single item on the menu that stood out, but we all know we really like it.
Then we realized, it's all just good. That's it. Typical menu, nothing spectacular, not one innovative item, but all done in house with fresh ingredients. There is not one single thing to complain about. That's worth a comment or two right there.