"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>
> Listing restaurants by their gross income strikes me as rather odd from a
> foodie perspective: Food quality plays only a very small part in the amount
> of business a restaurant gets, so a restaurant's place on the list doesn't
> indicate how good a meal you could expect to get there. If I were looking to
> INVEST in a restaurant, I might look at that list, but it seems otherwise
> useless.

MacDonalds would be number one on any such list that
included an aggregate. They had to restrict to a single
location to keep MacDonalds off the list. As a result
there are some places that appear more than once with
different locations.

I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the places
listed. It does make sense - In order to draw a large
consistant crowd to a single location the place has to
be both large and very good compared to its local
competition. The reason Harris Ranch makes it to the
list is it has an extraordinary location with very little
competition. It stands out for quality when compared
to interstate highway truck stops like the Iron Skillet
which are its competition.

There are all sorts of definitions of good when it comes
to food. Chain places that have a large aggregate
income like MacDonalds have to fit into at least one
such definition. Expensive gourmet places like Ruth's
Chris steakhouses have to fit in at least one such
definition. Places with a Michelin star have to fit in one
such definition.

I've made a note to try other ones listed in my metro
area.