I am amazed (or I guess not, as most people are sheep and unprepared to step out of line) that finally the idea that a 4 star (0, 1, 2, and 3) system with no transparent "rules" was ever going to do a decent job of accurately representing quality.
Even assuming that a reviewer can only eat one meal, on one night (i.e. the sample size is miniscule) it's laughable to believe that service/ambiance/locale don't have a significant effect on ratings (given that reviewers are, you know, human beings incapable of objectivity).
What people really want to know, these days, is ambiance/price/quality/experience...and Michelin is a dinosaur incapable of responding to those needs in its current form.
As somebody who has eaten at some of the world "best" restaurants (2 of the top 20 in a recent survey of the best restaurants on earth), I can tell you that Michelin is the last place I would look to in order to help me decide where to go.
-- mustireallyweighin
(To reply, click here)
I fail to see how Michelin stars are either a shackle or confining.
There two starred restaurants (Gary Danko and Coi) near my house which couldn't be more different. Danko has impeccable service and food, but portions that are too big by half and a menu that many consider staid (steak and fries anyone?). People whinge at Michelin for rewarding tradition over creativity.
Coi is also amazing, but too creative / cute by half. Innovation abounds! But some consider the food and presentation to be esoteric, inaccessible. People whinge at Michelin about rewarding the "new" over the "good". I think Coi may have one more star than Danko in fact.
Michelin can't win. Michelin is, like Robert Parker for wine, simply a decent though not definitive effort to quantify a dining experience, something that is both highly subjective but also absolutely unknowable to anyone who has not already experienced it. Diners over-weight it. But that doesn't mean the rating is without value. It's certainly better than nothing.
Perhaps half the best restaurant meals of my life have been at Michelin starred establishments. But only about half.
-- moodyguppy
(To reply, click here)
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Why Is Obama Always Talking About "False Choices"?
The Lovely Bones: Peter Jackson's Attempt To Show Us Heaven
Is It Practical To Kill Someone by Boiling Him in Lye?
Justice Stevens Is the Court's Last WASP. Should Obama Replace Him With Another One?
How Exactly Do They Measure Snowfall? With a Ruler?
Slate's Music Club: Stop Calling Rihanna Vacuous
I am amazed (or I guess not, as most people are sheep and unprepared to step out of line) that finally the idea that a 4 star (0, 1, 2, and 3) system with no transparent "rules" was ever going to do a decent job of accurately representing quality.
Even assuming that a reviewer can only eat one meal, on one night (i.e. the sample size is miniscule) it's laughable to believe that service/ambiance/locale don't have a significant effect on ratings (given that reviewers are, you know, human beings incapable of objectivity).
What people really want to know, these days, is ambiance/price/quality/experience...and Michelin is a dinosaur incapable of responding to those needs in its current form.
As somebody who has eaten at some of the world "best" restaurants (2 of the top 20 in a recent survey of the best restaurants on earth), I can tell you that Michelin is the last place I would look to in order to help me decide where to go.
-- mustireallyweighin
(To reply, click here)
I fail to see how Michelin stars are either a shackle or confining.
There two starred restaurants (Gary Danko and Coi) near my house which couldn't be more different. Danko has impeccable service and food, but portions that are too big by half and a menu that many consider staid (steak and fries anyone?). People whinge at Michelin for rewarding tradition over creativity.
Coi is also amazing, but too creative / cute by half. Innovation abounds! But some consider the food and presentation to be esoteric, inaccessible. People whinge at Michelin about rewarding the "new" over the "good". I think Coi may have one more star than Danko in fact.
Michelin can't win. Michelin is, like Robert Parker for wine, simply a decent though not definitive effort to quantify a dining experience, something that is both highly subjective but also absolutely unknowable to anyone who has not already experienced it. Diners over-weight it. But that doesn't mean the rating is without value. It's certainly better than nothing.
Perhaps half the best restaurant meals of my life have been at Michelin starred establishments. But only about half.
-- moodyguppy
(To reply, click here)