James Silverton wrote:
> Ed wrote on Sun, 2 Jan 2011 15:48:32 -0500:
>

>
>> Many people give false names to the restaurant. Widely done
>> and accepted, no big deal. It was not done for any illegal
>> operation or theft from the store. I know one guy that still uses
>> Dick Nixon when he makes a reservation.
>
> A relative of mine who wasn't any sort of Doctor always insisted on
> giving his name as "Doctor Realname". He maintained it worked very well.
> I never did that myself but I have little sympathy with the misled
> restaurant and only minor annoyance with my relative.


That brought back memories. An old friend whose husband owned a
commercial fishing boat always made hotel and restaurant reservations
under the name Captain "John Doe" and it ensured them great service.

Another friend in New England had the same first and last name as an
Archbishop. He never claimed to be the same person but also took
advantage of the coincidence.


gloria p

Dave Smith wrote:

>
> I was thinking about the article where the managing partner said that
> she had been unnecessarily cruel in her review of another partner's
> restaurant.
>

Perhaps the service/food WAS terrible. "Unnecessarily cruel" is pretty
subjective. Can't you imagine that a critic would be more objective
about the quality than a "partner" of the owner.

gloria p

In article >,
"Jinx Minx" > wrote:

> "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I admit to not being very invested in restaurant reviews. My MO when
> > looking for "someplace different, for Alex' sake!" is to plug in a type
> > of cuisine, or perhaps an area of town, see what comes up and how places
> > are rated, then read a couple reviews about it, deciding from there. If
> > someone says the lamb shanks are great at Caspian Bistro, I'm there.
> > (And have been there.) Especially if a couple people say so.
> >
> > --

>
> I haven't been to Caspian Bistro in so long I'd almost forgotten it existed.
> It used to be one of my favorite places. Thanks for the reminder!
>
> Jinx

We haven't been there in a long time, either. Loved it! The owner was
very hospitable while we were waiting for our order. She came out with
a small plate of some little noshes and samples. Pretty impressive.

--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller

Lyndon Watson wrote:


> 1. The reviewer lied about her identity (since then it appears that
> she and other reviewers habitually lie about their identities).

If the reservastion made in another of the party's name? If you dine
with 3 other people, whose name does the reservation *have to* be in?

> 2. She did so to facilitate the performance of her job, therefore for
> her own financial advantage.

Or because the best girl friend made the reservation with a good meal in
mind rather than the reviewers financial gain.

> 3. I, personally, would prefer not to do business with people who lie
> to me, including this reviewer (the point, for the dense, being that a
> restauranteur is entitled to feel similarly).

Oh pahleese.. when you're in my care and I laugh at some stupid joke you
make, does that mean you don't want me to care for you? Am I lying or
just humoring you? And is it important?
>
> Since then, I added a fourth simple fact:
> 4. The credibility of the reviewer is compromised by her behaviour.

It isn't to me since I know her privacy is her own business and why it
is important to carry out her job. If I review a restaurant on my local
whine-fest paper does that entitle the restaurant to my name?
>
> The result was series of irrelevant replies by persons who seemed to
> be unable to distinguish between facts and value judgments (and I have
> expressed no opinion about the rights and wrongs in this matter) and
> who seemed to think that anyone who did not happen to share their
> opinions was thereby stupid.
>
> But the real pleasure was in uncovering a couple of foul-mouthed
> group.loons. It's always useful to know where the filth is hiding.
>
> LW

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 02/01/2011 3:11 PM, sf wrote:
>
>>
>> The restaurant in question got a big fat F from me for customer
>> service.
>
> Customer? She is a restaurant reviewer. It's not like she is more likely
> to return if the food and service are good or more reluctant to return
> if it was bad. She goes to restaurants because she is paid to write
> reviews about them and her meals are reimbursed by her employer.
>
So she's never allowed to just go out to eat at anything fancier than a
McDonald's just because she reviews *some* restaurants? She wasn't there
to review that one, and just wanted to eat a meal with friends.

On 02/01/2011 7:14 PM, gloria.p wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> I was thinking about the article where the managing partner said that
>> she had been unnecessarily cruel in her review of another partner's
>> restaurant.
>>
>
> Perhaps the service/food WAS terrible. "Unnecessarily cruel" is pretty
> subjective. Can't you imagine that a critic would be more objective
> about the quality than a "partner" of the owner.

Apparently, it was not a singular opinion. According to one of the cited
articles, the partners had previously discussed this particular reviewer
and had agreed that she was not the type of critic they wanted reviewing
their restaurant.

I suppose that Virbila can honestly saw that the service she experienced
was horrible.

Gloria wrote:

> That brought back memories. An old friend whose husband owned a
> commercial fishing boat always made hotel and restaurant reservations
> under the name Captain "John Doe" and it ensured them great service.
>
> Another friend in New England had the same first and last name as an
> Archbishop. He never claimed to be the same person but also took
> advantage of the coincidence.

Don't forget that the name "Ed Pawlowski" is middling-prestigious in some
Pennsylvania areas!

When I book restaurant reservations online I use the pseudonym "James Bond."

Bob

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:56:11 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 02/01/2011 7:14 PM, gloria.p wrote:
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I was thinking about the article where the managing partner said that
> >> she had been unnecessarily cruel in her review of another partner's
> >> restaurant.
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps the service/food WAS terrible. "Unnecessarily cruel" is pretty
> > subjective. Can't you imagine that a critic would be more objective
> > about the quality than a "partner" of the owner.
>
> Apparently, it was not a singular opinion. According to one of the cited
> articles, the partners had previously discussed this particular reviewer
> and had agreed that she was not the type of critic they wanted reviewing
> their restaurant.
>
> I suppose that Virbila can honestly saw that the service she experienced
> was horrible.

This makes me wonder if restaurants can "opt out" of being reviewed?
I doubt many would do it, but why not?

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 17:09:35 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

> Gloria wrote:
>
> > That brought back memories. An old friend whose husband owned a
> > commercial fishing boat always made hotel and restaurant reservations
> > under the name Captain "John Doe" and it ensured them great service.
> >
> > Another friend in New England had the same first and last name as an
> > Archbishop. He never claimed to be the same person but also took
> > advantage of the coincidence.
>
> Don't forget that the name "Ed Pawlowski" is middling-prestigious in some
> Pennsylvania areas!
>
> When I book restaurant reservations online I use the pseudonym "James Bond."
>
Why not just use the ever so easy to spell "Bob"?


--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

sf > wrote:

>This makes me wonder if restaurants can "opt out" of being reviewed?

No, but they can try to send lawyers after anyone who publishes
a review of them.

Steve

On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 01:47:04 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
> >This makes me wonder if restaurants can "opt out" of being reviewed?
>
> No, but they can try to send lawyers after anyone who publishes
> a review of them.
>
It doesn't make any sense that a reviewer would waste their time
reviewing a restaurant that doesn't want to be reviewed. Most of them
want the publicity and are begging for a review.


--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
> >This makes me wonder if restaurants can "opt out" of being reviewed?
>
> No, but they can try to send lawyers after anyone who publishes
> a review of them.

Bose sued Consumer Reports for libel. It went all the way to the US
Supreme Court. Bose lost.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
Boron Elgar > wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 17:18:58 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Damn!! Where's Damsel when we need her? She's got the Kettle Corn.
> >I've got the lawn chairs. My money's on you, Hon! It's a bitch when
> >that estrogen patch goes, isn't it? ROTFLMAO!!!
> >
> >(You forgot to include "and the wagon it pulled.")
>
>
> OOO, I never heard that part. I must add it to the repertoire. Love
> it.
>
> Boron

I believe Dimitri included that once. :-) I'm just quoting him.

--
Barb

?
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote
>
> Don't forget that the name "Ed Pawlowski" is middling-prestigious in some
> Pennsylvania areas!
>
> When I book restaurant reservations online I use the pseudonym "James
> Bond."
>
> Bob

I've not been down there for some time, but I do want to make a reservation
at an Allentown restaurant. Preferably one near city hall. Could be worth a
chuckle or two.

On Jan 3, 11:52*am, sf > wrote:
> I think restaurants see enough real MDs and pretentious people with a
> PhD who insist on being called "Doctor" that they are relatively
> unimpressed by the title - even if a musician or someone completely
> unqualified uses it.

The only people entitled as of right to call themselves "Doctor" are
the PhDs and others with genuine doctorates. I've even seen
veterinary surgeons and dentists with mere undergraduate degrees using
it recently.

And, yes, I do have a PhD and, no, I have never used it making a
restaurant or any other kind of booking. Not that it would be any
advantage here anyway.

LW

Lyndon Watson > wrote:

>On Jan 3, 11:52*am, sf > wrote:
>> I think restaurants see enough real MDs and pretentious people with a
>> PhD who insist on being called "Doctor" that they are relatively
>> unimpressed by the title - even if a musician or someone completely
>> unqualified uses it.

>The only people entitled as of right to call themselves "Doctor" are
>the PhDs and others with genuine doctorates.

Yes, and with respect to sf's statement, musicians can have doctorates
in music. In jazz and blues circles, an intellectual musician
with a doctorate (and often, a sort of professorial demeanor) is likely to
get called "Doctor" by his/her peers as a sign of respect.

>And, yes, I do have a PhD and, no, I have never used it making a
>restaurant or any other kind of booking. Not that it would be any
>advantage here anyway.

Well. In the old days, travel industry professionals would tell
me that putting "Dr." into your airline or hotel reservation
would give you an edge if they are bumping people. So I used to
sometimes do it, but I no longer believe any airline pays any attention.

Steve

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Lyndon Watson > wrote:
>
> >On Jan 3, 11:52*am, sf > wrote:
> >> I think restaurants see enough real MDs and pretentious people with a
> >> PhD who insist on being called "Doctor" that they are relatively
> >> unimpressed by the title - even if a musician or someone completely
> >> unqualified uses it.
>
> >The only people entitled as of right to call themselves "Doctor" are
> >the PhDs and others with genuine doctorates.
>
> Yes, and with respect to sf's statement, musicians can have doctorates
> in music.

Not too many schools offer a doctorate in music. This looks like one:

http://www.esm.rochester.edu/degrees/dma.php

A Phd seems much more common.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel > wrote:

> (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> Yes, and with respect to sf's statement, musicians can have doctorates
>> in music.

>Not too many schools offer a doctorate in music. This looks like one:

>http://www.esm.rochester.edu/degrees/dma.php

>A Phd seems much more common.

I was using the phrase "doctorate in music" to include both a Ph.D
in music, or a D.Mus. Perhaps that's not the right terminology,
but in any case, such persons can call themselves doctors.

Steve

On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 20:52:56 -0800 (PST), Lyndon Watson
> arranged random neurons and opined:

>The only people entitled as of right to call themselves "Doctor" are
>the PhDs and others with genuine doctorates.

And MDs and JDs don't count, I suppose (although JDs rarely, if ever,
use "Dr." in their title).

> I've even seen
>veterinary surgeons and dentists with mere undergraduate degrees using
>it recently.

What a maroon - veterinary surgeons and dentists have post docs out
the ears.
>
>And, yes, I do have a PhD

Sure you do.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as warm as the wine,if the wine had been as old
as the turkey,and if the turkey had had a breast like the maid,

it would have been a swell dinner." Duncan Hines


To reply, remove "spambot" and replace it with "cox"

Dave Smith > wrote in
news

>
> I could be mistaken but it the link in the OP might be different from
> what was originally there, or T am remembering something else I found.
> At any rate there are reports in it about how erratic Virbila's
> reviews are, like raving about everything and then being stingy with
> the stars.


The following comes from an LA Times article about the incident, in
which the star rating system is explained

http://tinyurl.com/33uaaov

"In a letter to the editor Sunday, reader Stan Brothers echoed others in
criticizing Virbila for being overly stingy with her stars. "She has
raved about restaurants, then given them two out of four stars," he
wrote. "Restaurant owners and Times readers deserve a more realistic
standard."

The reality, though, is that a two-star review means, by definition, a
very good restaurant.

When we were establishing the criteria for judging restaurants, we
started with the assumption that L.A. was a world-class city and its
restaurants should be able to stand alongside those of anyplace else. It
would be insulting to the restaurants to do anything less — to judge
them "on a curve."

Thus, a four-star restaurant is one that is the equal of any restaurant
in the United States, and even the world. Accordingly, there have been
very few of those. In Southern California, only the latest incarnation
of Patina and José Andrès' Bazaar have earned that recently.

Just short of that perfect score have been Craft in Century City and
downtown's Rivera, with three-and-a-half stars each. A three-star
restaurant is one of the best in the state. There have been several of
these: Providence, Red O, WP24, Ammo, Valentino, Hatfield's, Lazy Ox
Canteen and Bouchon earned that rating this year.

By far, the vast majority of the places we have written about have
earned two or two-and-a-half stars, which, as described in the box that
accompanies every review, is a "very good" restaurant."

The writer of the article also notes that they give restaurants a 3 mth
grace period before reviewing and Virbila was not there to review it.



--
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

?
"Rhonda Anderson" > wrote in message
>> I could be mistaken but it the link in the OP might be different from
>> what was originally there, or T am remembering something else I found.
>> At any rate there are reports in it about how erratic Virbila's
>> reviews are, like raving about everything and then being stingy with
>> the stars.
>
>
> The following comes from an LA Times article about the incident, in
> which the star rating system is explained
>
> http://tinyurl.com/33uaaov
>
> "In a letter to the editor Sunday, reader Stan Brothers echoed others in
> criticizing Virbila for being overly stingy with her stars. "She has
> raved about restaurants, then given them two out of four stars," he
> wrote. "Restaurant owners and Times readers deserve a more realistic
> standard."

Now I understand. Just like the kids soccer teams. The losers still get
trophies too. We don't want to hurt their self esteem. And remember, give
110% at work today too!

They didn't burn my burger so they get 4 stars.

>
> i doubt it is legal in l.a. (or anywhere else, really) for a public place
> to refuse to serve someone unless they're obviously drunk or otherwise
> disorderly.
>
> your pal,
> blake


Businesses are open to the public, but they are still private
property. I work in a grocery store, and while we don't do it very
often, we do refuse to serve people. Usually, it is because the person
is drunk or disorderly. But we have refused to help people who were
difficult on a regular basis. We have the right to refuse service.

A few years ago, we had a guy coming in every night and asking for a
discount every night. We do not mark food down. I did find out later
that he assumed we marked it down later, and thought we were being
mean by refusing to mark it down a little early. He did not understand
that we were not allowed to mark it down at all, and could be fired
for that. I asked him politely a couple times to stop asking for
disounts. He would just try a different employee each time. It got to
the point where nobody wanted to help him. He would come in, and
everybody would go to the back to avoid him. I went up and offered to
help him. He said he wanted a different employee. I explained that
they all refused, so he would have to order from me. He went to the
manager, who explained that a clerk (me) had offered to help him. If
he didn't want me to help him, he would have to go somewhere else
since nobody else was willing to help him, and she would not force
anybody to help him.

We have also had a few "customers" who just ask for a bunch of samples
and never buy anything. After several of those visits, they get asked
to quit asking for samples or leave.

We have one lady right now who has a ton of special requests and then
brings back half the food for a refund. One time, she asked for
chicken to be fried fresh at 9pm. I did it, and she arrived at 10pm
and wanted it half off because it was an hour old. It was not old, and
it was her fault anyway. We did not mark it down, so she didn't buy
it. She would call and ask for a special price to be extended past the
sale date because she couldn't come in that day. She asked us to cook
something and then chill it because she wanted to buy it with food
stamps and did not want to buy one that was already out there cold
(even though we cooked it specifically for cold). She was returning
things almost every week. She even called and gave a different name
and had her son bring it back. Her last special order was about a
month ago. She wanted 3 turkey breasts cooked special. She wanted me
to collect the drippings (no, we don't do that), and she insisted that
we not put them in the hot case to keep them hot (even though she was
late and then shopped for an hour before picking them up). I marked
the upc codes on the bottom with "cooked fresh, date, no refund" in
case she tried to get yet another refund. I haven't seen her since, so
maybe she finally moved on to scam some other store.

Some people are so much hassle that they aren't worth the sale. I do
pet photography as a small business in addition to my regular job.
There is one customer I would rather not have again. Somebody else was
showing her cats for her at a show and hired me for photos. This lady
misunderstood what you get and chewed me out on the phone. She wanted
prints of every photo I take. The other photographer does this, but
his prints are small, he takes no more than 12 photos per cat, and he
charges more per cat. I take a variety of photos, let them pick the 6
they want, and they can get prints or a high res file on CD. The lady
was extremely rude on the phone, and then had me shoot 2 more cats, so
a total of 4 cats. I sent her the prints and a CD of the photos she
chose. I thought I was being professional and giving her both, she
could see what I deal I offer since the CD is better for website usage
anyway. And she can pay less and choose the photos that she wants.

A month later, I get a nasty email from her that the photos are all
washed out and useless. A month later, with no previous complaint. I
suspect she lost her prints and wanted a new set for free. I ended up
make 3 prints of each photo. One set exactly like the first, the next
set darker, and the next set clearly too dark. And a CD with all 3
versions of each photo. I sent it certified mail with 10 days to
return this set AND the previous set if she wanted a refund.
Otherwise, the order would be considered completed. The time I spent
on that order wasn't worth what I was paid. So, when I pass out flyers
at the shows, I do not leave a flyer on her space. I do not want her
as a customer ever again. For a long time, I was worried that she was
saying bad things about me, but I have since learned that she is very
difficult to get along with. She often pays other people to show her
cats for her, and most of her previous "friends" are no longer
friends. The people who set up the shows don't like her at all, so
people hearing any complaints from here will probably ignore them. I
do sometimes wonder if the other photographers have trouble with her.

I have never openly refused a customer for my business, but I have
avoided marketing to some people, and hoped that some would not be
repeat customers. I had one lady who hired me twice, but never bought
anything. Most people pay in advance at the show, but some don't come
back, and we do payment when they pick their photos. The first time
she hired me was in 2007. She accidentally replied to me when she
meant to forward to somebody else. She was telling the person to look
at the photos by the new kid. I don't know if she was impressed by the
kid (I look younger than I am) or if she thought I was horrible. She
never replied again. Then, in 2009, she hired me again for the same
cat. No payment at the show, and no reply when I posted the proofs.
Later, at a show, she told me she wanted one of the photos, but never
told me which one, and never paid for it. So, when she signed up again
at a show in December, I was not thrilled. This time, she did photos
on the first day, saw proofs the second day, paid and got her CD at
the show. So, I'm glad I was polite and didn't refuse. But I was sure
expecting to get dumped again.

On Jan 1, 8:30*am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 21:08:51 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> If reviewers want to sneak around and then drop bombs on the
> >> unsuspecting restauranteurs, if is only fair that they be able to
> >> fight back.
> > the restaurateur was interfering with the conduct of her business.
> > she was not interfering in the conduct of his.
>
> The thing about unsuspecting restauranteurs ... that's the whole
> point! *Everyone who walks in should be treated like a first class
> customer. *What kind of review is it if you know the customer is
> going to write about their experience in the paper ... you'll step
> up your game! while your average, everyday schmo gets crappy
> service and cold steak. *The whole *point* is to review the
> food and service that anyone can expect coming in, not just the
> 'celebrities'. *
>
> If a restauranteur is afraid of a reviewer, they need to figure out
> what's wrong with *themselves* instead of avoiding a review.
>
> nancy

Very true. I work in a grocery store, and we have a mystery service
program where we get a mystery shopper just about every week. It could
be any day of the week between 9 am and 9 pm. Obviously, if we know
they are a mystery shopper, we go overboard to make sure we get a good
score. But usually we don't know, and that is the point. We are
supposed to treat everybody well so that we can pass anytime without
knowing.

These mystery shops are paid for by the store because it is a way to
judge our service and correct problems. We get the reports a few days
later with no actual details so that we can't put a face to the
report. Sometimes, we will get special manager shops where a manager
from another store does the mystery shop, and then comes back to each
employee and either compliments them or coaches them. They don't count
on our scores, but they do give instant feedback.

The regular shops count, and our managers have to attend special
meetings if the scores are too low. Employees can earn money with
good shops. 5 perfect shops in a row means $50. If we get an
additional 5 shops in a row, we then get $75. It goes up. If we get a
no on a shop, then we start over. I've gotten up to 12 in a row before
missing one. And it is hard to do as we have 8 things we have to get
right. Just one wrong, and we start over.

On Jan 1, 8:41*am, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article >,
> *blake murphy > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:42:08 -0800, Steve B wrote:
> > > IMHO, IDGAS. *I have liked restaurants that reviewers didn't. *Does that
> > > make me a tasteless cad? *I have liked movies that reviewers didn't, and
> > > vice versa. *If I need my Mommy (or equivalent) to approve where I eat and
> > > what I watch, you have permission to shoot me.
> > do you do any research before you buy a big-ticket item?
>
> Of course not. *That's why stores have salespeople, to give honest
> answers to Steve's questions. *We all know they would *never* lie!
>

Reminds me of when I went with a friend to look at laptops. The sales
person rushed over and tried to sell my friend a computer. I asked a
couple questions, and he had to go find a real computer geek who could
actually answer my questions. Most of the sales people only know how
to sell. They don't know anything about the products.

I like to look things up online and read a bunch of the reviews. If
they have a lot of reviews, you can usually drop the highest and
lowest reviews and have a good idea whether the product is good or
not.

wrote:
> On Jan 1, 8:30 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> The thing about unsuspecting restauranteurs ... that's the whole
>> point! Everyone who walks in should be treated like a first class
>> customer. What kind of review is it if you know the customer is
>> going to write about their experience in the paper ... you'll step
>> up your game! while your average, everyday schmo gets crappy
>> service and cold steak. The whole *point* is to review the
>> food and service that anyone can expect coming in, not just the
>> 'celebrities'.

> Very true. I work in a grocery store, and we have a mystery service
> program where we get a mystery shopper just about every week.

Wow, they keep up the pressure, don't they.

It could
> be any day of the week between 9 am and 9 pm. Obviously, if we know
> they are a mystery shopper, we go overboard to make sure we get a good
> score. But usually we don't know, and that is the point. We are
> supposed to treat everybody well so that we can pass anytime without
> knowing.

That's exactly what a restaurant reviewer is, a mystery shopper.
When it comes to dealing with the public, it's almost necessary as
people might not complain, but they won't come back if they have
a bad experience. It's not a bad idea to wonder if this person is
going to review your transaction.

The store in town was a hell hole for years, everyone complained
about it. Dried out produce, bad selection, the feeling of being
dirty, and to top off the shopping experience, the employees were
downright *nasty* ... every time I went there I'd come home
aggravated. They got away with it because there wasn't another
convenient supermarket around.

I often thought This store needs a mystery shopper in the worst
way. Luckily the chain was bought out by Albertsons and all
kinds of things improved, especially the caliber of employees.

> These mystery shops are paid for by the store because it is a way to
> judge our service and correct problems. We get the reports a few days
> later with no actual details so that we can't put a face to the
> report.

Interesting. This other store I visit not as frequently often spits
out a survey with your receipt and you get to grade your visit.
I would hate to think they knew who I was though I always
commend their deli staff (friendly, they always check to see if
whatever is sliced the way you like it), the staff on the floor
drove me crazy and I always let them have it.

> Sometimes, we will get special manager shops where a manager
> from another store does the mystery shop, and then comes back to each
> employee and either compliments them or coaches them. They don't count
> on our scores, but they do give instant feedback.

That's cool. Tell me what I'm doing that I could do better. Nothing
wrong with that.

> The regular shops count, and our managers have to attend special
> meetings if the scores are too low. Employees can earn money with
> good shops. 5 perfect shops in a row means $50. If we get an
> additional 5 shops in a row, we then get $75. It goes up. If we get a
> no on a shop, then we start over. I've gotten up to 12 in a row before
> missing one. And it is hard to do as we have 8 things we have to get
> right. Just one wrong, and we start over.

Very interesting. Thanks for that story.

nancy

Dan wrote on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 18:53:17 -0800:

>> sf > wrote:
>>
> >> This makes me wonder if restaurants can "opt out" of being
> >> reviewed?
>>
>> No, but they can try to send lawyers after anyone who
>> publishes a review of them.

> Bose sued Consumer Reports for libel. It went all the way to
> the US Supreme Court. Bose lost.

Bose was indignant at their low rating but somewhat wrong headed.
Consumer Reports measured accuracy of reproduction not "realistic"
sound, which is what Bose speakers produce. I remember being
congratulated by an "expert" on having bought a new hi-fi setup when all
I had done was arrange a cheap radio in my bar so that the sound
reflected off a wall. I currently have a Bose table radio in my bedroom
and like its sound a lot.


--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Terry wrote on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 23:05:18 -0800:

>> The only people entitled as of right to call themselves
>> "Doctor" are the PhDs and others with genuine doctorates.

> And MDs and JDs don't count, I suppose (although JDs rarely,
> if ever, use "Dr." in their title).

>> I've even seen
>> veterinary surgeons and dentists with mere undergraduate
>> degrees using it recently.

> What a maroon - veterinary surgeons and dentists have post
> docs out the ears.
>>
>> And, yes, I do have a PhD

> Sure you do.

> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

Doctorates are more common in American medicine than in British, for
example, DDS for dentists and DVM for vets. Both dentists and vets like
to be called "Doctor", which did not use to be the case in Britain.
Incidentally, JD ("Juris Doctor") is a common US legal degree but
lawyers don't call themselves "doctors" even if they are fond of adding
"Esq." after their names; about the only Americans who do so. I believe
the "elegant variation" of "Esq" for "Mr" is nothing like as common in
Britain as it was when I was young. "Esq." is used by both male and
female lawyers in the US just as in France a female lawyer can take the
title "Maitre" (not "Maitresse"!)

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On 2011-01-03, James Silverton > wrote:

> Bose was indignant at their low rating but somewhat wrong headed.
> Consumer Reports measured accuracy of reproduction not "realistic"
> sound, which is what Bose speakers produce.

Perhaps. To someone that's never heard a quality sound system. IMO,
the only thing Bose ever made that was worth a damn was those little
101 outdoor spkrs, and only when they were on sale for less than $50
ea instead of the absurd $100+ msrp. All the rest of their stuff is
overpriced crap. Their Acoustic Wave line is an outright scam. One
famous rock musician admonishes buyers, right on his albums, to never
play his recordings thru Bose spkrs. That's harsh.

nb

notbob wrote on 3 Jan 2011 14:27:52 GMT:

>> Bose was indignant at their low rating but somewhat wrong
>> headed. Consumer Reports measured accuracy of reproduction
>> not "realistic" sound, which is what Bose speakers produce.

> Perhaps. To someone that's never heard a quality sound
> system. IMO, the only thing Bose ever made that was worth a
> damn was those little 101 outdoor spkrs, and only when they
> were on sale for less than $50 ea instead of the absurd $100+
> msrp. All the rest of their stuff is overpriced crap. Their
> Acoustic Wave line is an outright scam. One famous rock
> musician admonishes buyers, right on his albums, to never play
> his recordings thru Bose spkrs. That's harsh.

Can't argue with your rock "musician" but I'll never willingly listen to
his stuff anyway. Classical music sounds fine to me with the Acoustic
Wave and I do have a rather good standard system in my living room as
well.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> wrote:
> > Very true. I work in a grocery store, and we have a mystery service
> > program where we get a mystery shopper just about every week.
>
> Wow, they keep up the pressure, don't they.

Where prices and maybe locations are competitive or equal, customer
service is an ace up the sleeve and it's what will keep me coming back,
even if I have to go out of my way. I take my car to a dealer that's 20
minutes away instead of the one that's 7 minutes from my house because
they're a bunch of bozos. Bozoes? Bozos.
--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller

On 2011-01-03, James Silverton > wrote:

> his stuff anyway. Classical music sounds fine to me with the Acoustic
> Wave.....

They have many customers equally convinced. If you're happy, that's
all that counts.

nb

On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 03:35:31 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

> The regular shops count, and our managers have to attend special
> meetings if the scores are too low. Employees can earn money with
> good shops. 5 perfect shops in a row means $50. If we get an
> additional 5 shops in a row, we then get $75. It goes up. If we get a
> no on a shop, then we start over. I've gotten up to 12 in a row before
> missing one. And it is hard to do as we have 8 things we have to get
> right. Just one wrong, and we start over.

Congratulations on keeping your customer service ratings high! It's
also nice that the company gives incentives. Is it just your
particular store, the area or is it a nationwide policy?

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

In article > ,
Rhonda Anderson > wrote:
(snip)
> When we were establishing the criteria for judging restaurants, we
> started with the assumption that L.A. was a world-class city and its
> restaurants should be able to stand alongside those of anyplace else. It
> would be insulting to the restaurants to do anything less — to judge
> them "on a curve."

And yet, there's something psychological about not getting the most.
Some people think "adequate" means "lacking."

> Thus, a four-star restaurant is one that is the equal of any restaurant
> in the United States, and even the world. Accordingly, there have been

> By far, the vast majority of the places we have written about have
> earned two or two-and-a-half stars, which, as described in the box that
> accompanies every review, is a "very good" restaurant."

And Margaret says that anything less than 3-1/2 or 4 stars by a NY Times
reviewer is death to a NYC restaurant, even though 3 stars means
"excellent".
--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller

"Lyndon Watson" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 11:52 am, sf > wrote:
> I think restaurants see enough real MDs and pretentious people with a
> PhD who insist on being called "Doctor" that they are relatively
> unimpressed by the title - even if a musician or someone completely
> unqualified uses it.

The only people entitled as of right to call themselves "Doctor" are
the PhDs and others with genuine doctorates. I've even seen
veterinary surgeons and dentists with mere undergraduate degrees using
it recently.

And, yes, I do have a PhD and, no, I have never used it making a
restaurant or any other kind of booking. Not that it would be any
advantage here anyway.

LW

Since there is no law against using the term "doctor", as there is against
impersonating a police officer, I believe I shall join the ranks of Piled
High and Deep, and start calling myself "Doctor". I am an expert in many
things, and certainly rate myself with some of the Piled High and Deeps I
have met. However, since doctors are known for being so cheap, it may not
be a good idea in some venues, as they get poor service and bad seating
because of their lousy tipping practices.

Steve

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 09:18:48 GMT, Rhonda Anderson
> wrote:

> The following comes from an LA Times article about the incident, in
> which the star rating system is explained
>
> http://tinyurl.com/33uaaov
>
> "In a letter to the editor Sunday, reader Stan Brothers echoed others in
> criticizing Virbila for being overly stingy with her stars. "She has
> raved about restaurants, then given them two out of four stars," he
> wrote. "Restaurant owners and Times readers deserve a more realistic
> standard."
>
> The reality, though, is that a two-star review means, by definition, a
> very good restaurant.
>
> When we were establishing the criteria for judging restaurants, we
> started with the assumption that L.A. was a world-class city and its
> restaurants should be able to stand alongside those of anyplace else. It
> would be insulting to the restaurants to do anything less — to judge
> them "on a curve."

Everyone expects grade inflation these days; except these people have
lawyers (not parents) to do their battling for them after they have a
temper tantrum.
>


--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

Melba's wrote on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 09:21:53 -0600:

> In article > ,
> Rhonda Anderson > wrote:
> (snip)
>> When we were establishing the criteria for judging
>> restaurants, we started with the assumption that L.A. was a
>> world-class city and its restaurants should be able to stand
>> alongside those of anyplace else. It would be insulting to
>> the restaurants to do anything less — to judge them "on a
>> curve."

> And yet, there's something psychological about not getting the
> most. Some people think "adequate" means "lacking."

>> Thus, a four-star restaurant is one that is the equal of any
>> restaurant in the United States, and even the world.
>> Accordingly, there have been

>> By far, the vast majority of the places we have written about
>> have earned two or two-and-a-half stars, which, as described
>> in the box that accompanies every review, is a "very good"
>> restaurant."

> And Margaret says that anything less than 3-1/2 or 4 stars by
> a NY Times reviewer is death to a NYC restaurant, even though
> 3 stars means "excellent".

Grade inflation again! A Michelin three-star restaurant is one of the
best in the world and I think only two restaurants in the US have
received that grade. Even a mention without stars in Michelin would
merit a two-star or more rating in the Washington Post. I'm not
particularly fond of the opinions of Tom Sietsma, their critic.
--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

In article >,
"James Silverton" > wrote:

> Dan wrote on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 18:53:17 -0800:
>
> >> sf > wrote:
> >>
> > >> This makes me wonder if restaurants can "opt out" of being
> > >> reviewed?
> >>
> >> No, but they can try to send lawyers after anyone who
> >> publishes a review of them.
>
> > Bose sued Consumer Reports for libel. It went all the way to
> > the US Supreme Court. Bose lost.
>
> Bose was indignant at their low rating but somewhat wrong headed.
> Consumer Reports measured accuracy of reproduction not "realistic"
> sound, which is what Bose speakers produce. I remember being
> congratulated by an "expert" on having bought a new hi-fi setup when all
> I had done was arrange a cheap radio in my bar so that the sound
> reflected off a wall. I currently have a Bose table radio in my bedroom
> and like its sound a lot.

I think it was a little more complicated than that, but some of my
sympathy went with Bose. They made their speakers to sound different,
and they did. CR downgraded them for that. The Bose speaker systems
had some of the speakers pointing forward, and some pointing back at the
wall. The wall became part of the sound system.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Wayne" schrieb :

> Some restaurant reviewers are out to lunch. Recently we had a
> reviewer rave over the Wiener Schnitzel he enjoyed. He liked it
> because it was thin and crispy. Since when is a WS thin and crispy?

A Wiener Schnitzel is thin. The Panade should be crispy and should not
stick to the meat.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

In article >,
Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 20:52:56 -0800 (PST), Lyndon Watson
> > arranged random neurons and opined:
>
> >The only people entitled as of right to call themselves "Doctor" are
> >the PhDs and others with genuine doctorates.
>
> And MDs and JDs don't count, I suppose (although JDs rarely, if ever,
> use "Dr." in their title).
>
> > I've even seen
> >veterinary surgeons and dentists with mere undergraduate degrees using
> >it recently.
>
> What a maroon - veterinary surgeons and dentists have post docs out
> the ears.
> >
> >And, yes, I do have a PhD

Things work differently in different countries. I have heard from
several sources that other countries have medical folks who perform the
same function as MDs in the US, but only have undergraduate degrees.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 09:21:53 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:


>
>And Margaret says that anything less than 3-1/2 or 4 stars by a NY Times
>reviewer is death to a NYC restaurant, even though 3 stars means
>"excellent".

Yup.

I think that is because the high-end places are so very expensive. I
was reading the NYT about a place in Manhattan that was named as
serving one of the most memorable dishes the reviewer had eaten during
2010. This is a well known chef's place. I hit the restaurant's web
site and saw that the tasting menu was $150 per person. That is before
drinks or wine, of course.

A couple of drinks and a decent bottle of wine and tip and you're
talking $500 or so for dinner. Why waste that on anything less than
perfection? A place with those prices should ensure that the diner
walks away with damp underwear and goose bumps.

http://colicchioandsons.com/menus/tastingMenu.pdf

The NYT does have reviews of less expensive restaurants, though. The
section is called "$25 and Under." At those prices, many more folks
can afford to experiment and there is no dependence on the star system
as there is at the high end.


Boron