The L.A. Times' restaurant critic was identified, photographed, and
asked to leave from a new restaurant, which then posted her picture on
a website. Here's the Times response to the incident, an explanation
of their reviewing policy.
http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,3870239.story

The paper also has a column by her today about the restaurant scene in
L.A. in 2010, as it happens. -aem

On Dec 30, 10:22*am, aem > wrote:
> The L.A. Times' restaurant critic was identified, photographed, and
> asked to leave from a new restaurant, which then posted her picture on
> a website. *Here's the Times response to the incident, an explanation
> of their reviewing policy.http://www.latimes.com/features/food...-restaurants-2...
>
> The paper also has a column by her today about the restaurant scene in
> L.A. in 2010, as it happens. * *-aem

Obviously that restaurant won't be open for very long.
If they will treat someone who is there to inform others about the
menu and service like that....I wouldn't want to eat there at all.

They just shot themselves in the foot. IMHO

On 12/30/2010 1:22 PM, aem wrote:
> The L.A. Times' restaurant critic was identified, photographed, and
> asked to leave from a new restaurant, which then posted her picture on
> a website. Here's the Times response to the incident, an explanation
> of their reviewing policy.
> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,3870239.story
>
> The paper also has a column by her today about the restaurant scene in
> L.A. in 2010, as it happens. -aem

Oops!

--
Currently Reading: Falling Free by Lois McMaster Bujold

"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 30, 10:22 am, aem > wrote:
> The L.A. Times' restaurant critic was identified, photographed, and
> asked to leave from a new restaurant, which then posted her picture on
> a website. Here's the Times response to the incident, an explanation
> of their reviewing
> policy.http://www.latimes.com/features/food...-restaurants-2...
>
> The paper also has a column by her today about the restaurant scene in
> L.A. in 2010, as it happens. -aem

Obviously that restaurant won't be open for very long.
If they will treat someone who is there to inform others about the
menu and service like that....I wouldn't want to eat there at all.

They just shot themselves in the foot. IMHO

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.

Steve

On 30/12/2010 2:42 PM, 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.


I don't bother much with what reviewers have to say about restaurants. I
have gone to places that they have rated highly and been disappointed,
and I have been to places that reviewers have panned and enjoyed them. I
know that you can't please everyone but one would expect a reviewer to
be a little more reliable.

My mother and I never seemed to see eye to eye on restaurants. She never
seemed to appreciate my favourite restaurants. And then is one of my
sisters in law. She has never liked any of the restaurants that I enjoy,
and I never liked the places she goes.

On Dec 30, 6:30*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:22*am, aem > wrote:
>
> > The L.A. Times' restaurant critic was identified, photographed, and
> > asked to leave from a new restaurant, which then posted her picture on
> > a website. *Here's the Times response to the incident, an explanation
> > of their reviewing policy.http://www.latimes.com/features/food...-restaurants-2...
>
> > The paper also has a column by her today about the restaurant scene in
> > L.A. in 2010, as it happens. * *-aem
>
> Obviously that restaurant won't be open for very long.
> If they will treat someone who is there to inform others about the
> menu and service like that....I wouldn't want to eat there at all.
>
> They just shot themselves in the foot. *IMHO

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?
They need some meat there, and it should not be soggy or crispy.

On Dec 30, 8:15*pm, Wayne > wrote:
> On Dec 30, 6:30*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 30, 10:22*am, aem > wrote:
>
> > > The L.A. Times' restaurant critic was identified, photographed, and
> > > asked to leave from a new restaurant, which then posted her picture on
> > > a website. *Here's the Times response to the incident, an explanation
> > > of their reviewing policy.http://www.latimes.com/features/food...-restaurants-2...
>
> > > The paper also has a column by her today about the restaurant scene in
> > > L.A. in 2010, as it happens. * *-aem
>
> > Obviously that restaurant won't be open for very long.
> > If they will treat someone who is there to inform others about the
> > menu and service like that....I wouldn't want to eat there at all.
>
> > They just shot themselves in the foot. *IMHO
>
> 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?
> They need some meat there, and it should not be soggy or crispy.

Years back, we had a reviewer review our country style restaurant. He
didn't like the Goulash because it had a thin layer of fat on top. I
happen to like it that way. And he raved about our home made apple
pie which was not home made at all, but purchased from a frosted foods
supplier. Bake and serve. Maybe we should have served him borscht
and told him that it was a Latino specialty.

On 30/12/2010 3:15 PM, Wayne wrote:

>
> 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?
> They need some meat there, and it should not be soggy or crispy.


Speaking of jackasses, I had an English professor who quite serious
thought that he was one of the smartest men on the face of the earth.
He got a gig as the movie reviewer for the local newspaper. "Quest for
Fire" and "Chariots of Fire" were playing at the same time, so he did a
compare and contrast of the two. It is too long ago for me to remember
the details of his review, but I was not at all impressed. As far as I
was concerned, they both had "fire" ion the title, and that was about it.

On Dec 30, 11:42*am, "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.
>
> Steve

I have agreed and disagreed with reviewers also. My statement was
more to the way the reviewer was treated.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 30/12/2010 2:42 PM, 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.
>
>
> I don't bother much with what reviewers have to say about restaurants. I
> have gone to places that they have rated highly and been disappointed, and
> I have been to places that reviewers have panned and enjoyed them. I know
> that you can't please everyone but one would expect a reviewer to be a
> little more reliable.
>
> My mother and I never seemed to see eye to eye on restaurants. She never
> seemed to appreciate my favourite restaurants. And then is one of my
> sisters in law. She has never liked any of the restaurants that I enjoy,
> and I never liked the places she goes.

I grew up in Las Vegas. At an early age, I was introduced to good food. As
an adolescent and young man, I was introduced to fine dining.

Still, restaurants are a personal experience. There are Greasy Spoons I
would gravitate towards, and then some restaurants with various stars
besides their names where I would not spend $150 a person for about eight
ounces maximum of cooked foods, most of it looking like miniature child
portions.

Most "food critics" are total snobs, IMHO, and rate the experience more than
the actual food. And since they're generally not paying a dime for it, I
think their opinions are faulted from the start.

How would a person who does not particularly like seafood evaluate any
seafood restaurant? How would a person heavily inclined towards British or
European foods evaluate a Chinese or Indian cuisine restaurant?

To me, any dining experience is a combination of ambience, service,
demeanor, food, and the intangible on-the-fly decisions made by every server
and cook. But some reviewers overrate towards one or the other, like there
is some perfect criterion that only the reviewer knows, and expects the
restaurant to match.

I consider my neighbor, friend, or work associate to be a better reviewer of
whether or not a restaurant is good rather than someone who is pampered and
expects their agenda to be catered to.

YMMV

Steve

"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 30, 11:42 am, "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.
>
> Steve

I have agreed and disagreed with reviewers also. My statement was
more to the way the reviewer was treated.

What? She was treated for what she was. A restaurant HAS THE RIGHT TO
REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE. That sign is clearly posted.

Steve

On Dec 31, 9:37*am, ImStillMags > wrote:
> I have agreed and disagreed with reviewers also. * My statement was
> more to the way the reviewer was treated.

According to her own newspaper she booked under a false name. So we
know she is deceitful. I wouldn't want to do business with such a
person either.

LW

On Dec 30, 4:09*pm, Lyndon Watson > wrote:
> On Dec 31, 9:37*am, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > I have agreed and disagreed with reviewers also. * My statement was
> > more to the way the reviewer was treated.
>
> According to her own newspaper she booked under a false name. *So we
> know she is deceitful. *I wouldn't want to do business with such a
> person either.
>
> LW

All reviewers book under a false name. That is so the restaurant
doesn't know it is being reviewed and the reader gets a true piture of
the restaurant. If they knew a reviewer was coming the restaurant
would do things differently than 'normal'. Booking under an assumed
name is normal for reviewers.

It sounds to me like that restaurant was afraid of what the reviewer
would say, like they werenot sure it would be a positive review, so
they tossed the reviewer out. Bad idea, I think.

On Dec 30, 3:30*pm, "Steve B" > wrote:


Most "food critics" are total snobs, IMHO, and rate the experience
more than
the actual food. And since they're generally not paying a dime for
it, I
think their opinions are faulted from the start.


--------------------

Your opinion is just that, opinion. Reviewers always pay for their
food. They are generally completely anonymous, which is the
point. They rate both the food and the experiece.

I had reviewers in my restaurant and I had no idea who they were. I
got good reviews.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:09:00 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 30/12/2010 2:42 PM, 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.
>
>
>I don't bother much with what reviewers have to say about restaurants. I
>have gone to places that they have rated highly and been disappointed,
>and I have been to places that reviewers have panned and enjoyed them. I
>know that you can't please everyone but one would expect a reviewer to
>be a little more reliable.
>
>My mother and I never seemed to see eye to eye on restaurants. She never
>seemed to appreciate my favourite restaurants. And then is one of my
>sisters in law. She has never liked any of the restaurants that I enjoy,
>and I never liked the places she goes.


This doesn't really have to do with what the reviewer said about the
restaurant, though. It has to do with the behavior of the owner
towards the reviewer and her party.

I am not even offering judgment on whether the reviewer's insistence
on anonymity in her line of work is sensible or defensible or
necessary or logical. That doesn't matter either.

If the owner of the restaurant did not want the reviewer eating there
he could have discreetly asked her if she intended to review and if he
did not like her reply or even lack of one, he could have asked her to
leave and come back at some other time. It was soon after the opening
that she appeared, much earlier than she usually does to review, but
supposedly she was just casing the place casually. Quien sabe?

But under any circumstances there was no need to take a photo and
splash it all over the net. Stupid move and very unprofessional. THAT
would be a reason not to patronize the place.

Boron

In article
>,
ImStillMags > wrote:

> On Dec 30, 3:30*pm, "Steve B" > wrote:
>
>
> Most "food critics" are total snobs, IMHO, and rate the experience
> more than
> the actual food. And since they're generally not paying a dime for
> it, I
> think their opinions are faulted from the start.
>
>
> --------------------
>
> Your opinion is just that, opinion. Reviewers always pay for their
> food. They are generally completely anonymous, which is the
> point. They rate both the food and the experiece.

I think it depends. We had a little flap in a local newsgroup about a
review published by a major newspaper (San Francisco Chronicle) in our
area. There was speculation about how they did reviews. Well, it's
published right in the newspaper (or at least on their web site, which
is what I looked at). All published reviews are based on anonymous
visits, paid by the newspaper, and based on a certain number of visits:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../FDLB10FVS4.DT
L

On the other hand, we've all seen reviews in small, local papers; where
every single review has an ad for that very same restaurant on the very
same page. The reviews are all glowing, and not a negative word is to
be seen, even if the restaurant is really bad. The author of the review
is usually not listed, making me suspect that it's the ad manager who
wrote it. I also wouldn't be surprised if the restaurant paid for the
meal.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:09:07 -0800 (PST), Lyndon Watson
> wrote:

>On Dec 31, 9:37*am, ImStillMags > wrote:
>> I have agreed and disagreed with reviewers also. * My statement was
>> more to the way the reviewer was treated.
>
>According to her own newspaper she booked under a false name. So we
>know she is deceitful. I wouldn't want to do business with such a
>person either.
>
>LW

I gather you do not know very much about such reviewers in the US. Do
you really think they book under their own names?

There are all sorts of stories about how the big city reviewers keep
their identities hidden with different names, credit cards, wigs,
large hats, etc.

Hell, Ruth Reichl wrote a book about it.

http://www.amazon.com/Garlic-Sapphir.../dp/1594200319

On 30/12/2010 8:24 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:

>
> This doesn't really have to do with what the reviewer said about the
> restaurant, though. It has to do with the behavior of the owner
> towards the reviewer and her party.
>
> I am not even offering judgment on whether the reviewer's insistence
> on anonymity in her line of work is sensible or defensible or
> necessary or logical. That doesn't matter either.
>
> If the owner of the restaurant did not want the reviewer eating there
> he could have discreetly asked her if she intended to review and if he
> did not like her reply or even lack of one, he could have asked her to
> leave and come back at some other time. It was soon after the opening
> that she appeared, much earlier than she usually does to review, but
> supposedly she was just casing the place casually. Quien sabe?
>
> But under any circumstances there was no need to take a photo and
> splash it all over the net. Stupid move and very unprofessional. THAT
> would be a reason not to patronize the place.
>



I am not familiar with her reviews, but, according to another article
about that incident, the managing partner was upset about a review of
another partner's restaurant and said that it was unnecessarily cruel.
Some journalist's reviews are more about them ranting in their
particular style. All they need is a target for their venom.

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. She has felt free to profit by expressing her view about the work
of other people. He merely turned the tables on her. Seems fair to me.

In article >,
"Steve B" > wrote:
> I consider my neighbor, friend, or work associate to be a better reviewer of
> whether or not a restaurant is good

I often use Yelp reviews.

--
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

In article
>,
ImStillMags > wrote:

> >On Dec 30, 3:30*pm, "Steve B" > wrote:
>
>
> >more than the actual food. And since they're generally not paying a
> >dime for it, I think their opinions are faulted from the start.

> Your opinion is just that, opinion. Reviewers always pay for their
> food.

I'll bet he meant that they don't pay with their *own* money, not that
they were getting a free meal from the restaurant.

--
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

Recorded most notably by Arthur Godfrey, Andrews Sisters, and Bobby Vinton.

Goes to show that everyone does not have the same taste ...............

Oh, I don't want her, you can have her
She's too fat for me
She's too fat for me
She's too fat for me
I don't want her, you can have her,
She's too fat for me
She's too fat
She's too fat
She's too fat for me

I get dizzy
I get numbo
When I'm dancing
With my Jum-Jum-Jumbo

I don't want her, you can have her
She's too fat for me
She's too fat for me
She's too fat for me
I don't want her, you can have her
She's too fat for me
She's too fat
She's too fat
She's too fat for me

Can she prance up a hill?
No, no, no, no, no
Can she dance a quadrille?
No, no, no, no, no
Does she fit in your coupe?
By herself she's a group
Could she possibly
Sit upon your knee?
No, no, no

We don't want her, you can have her
She's too fat for me
And she's too fat for me
But she's just right for me
We don't want her, you can have her
She's too fat for me
Yeah, she's too fat,
Much too fat
But she's just right for me

She's so charming
And she's so winning
But it's alarming
When she goes in swimming

We don't want her, you can have her
She's too fat for me
She's too fat for me
But she's just right for me
So I sure want her, you can't have her
She's just right for me
But she's too fat!
She's not too fat!
She's just right for me!

She's a twosome,
She's a foursome
If she'd lose some
I would like her more some

I don't want her, you can have her
She's too fat for me
She's too fat for me
She's too fat for me
I don't want her you can have her
She's too fat for me
She's too fat
Much too fat
She's too fat for me
Hey!

All reviewers book under a false name. That is so the restaurant
doesn't know it is being reviewed and the reader gets a true piture of
the restaurant.

reply:

Funny. If I want a "true picture" of a restaurant, I prefer to go there
myself. I hate gorgonzola, and a few other things, and I don't want to read
a review mentioning that the gorgonzola parfait is to die for.

I have been in the service industry, and I know how "secret shoppers" and
"secret diners" can be intentionally abusive to test employees they want to
get rid of, or to test restaurants they don't like in the first place. IOW,
their mind is made up before they walk in.

A business should stand on its own merits. Not everyone wants the dining
experience that one of these stuffy reviewers expects, and is totally
satisfied with "good" food and "good" service, and will not pick it apart
because it isn't up to a reviewer's standards. In the meantime, a negative
review can cost a business dearly.

I'd personally like to see someone sue these reviewers or papers for loss of
business. Who appointed them in the first place?

And if you place all your trust in a reviewer, I have a bridge for sale near
you. I can be there tomorrow. Bring small bills in a brown paper bag,
please. Only the serious need reply.

Steve

On 30/12/2010 10:40 PM, Steve B wrote:

> I'd personally like to see someone sue these reviewers or papers for loss of
> business. Who appointed them in the first place?

It is not like they are qualified in the food business. They are
journalists first. Who's to say that they have any experience with the
foods they will be trying. They may be able to say if the dish or not,
but perhaps not be able to compare it with the same dishes in other
restaurants.

"Boron Elgar" > wrote

> But under any circumstances there was no need to take a photo and
> splash it all over the net. Stupid move and very unprofessional. THAT
> would be a reason not to patronize the place.
>
> Boron

To me, that would absolutely make me want to go and patronize the place.
The restaurateur is saying, "Forget about the critics say. You come and be
the judge." I'll bet there was a spike in business after this, and perhaps
a continuing upswing. I would definitely tell the manager of chef that the
reason I came in the first place was because of the incident, and then give
an objective review of my own, even if it is just an "average person", and
not a "experienced reviewer."

Stupid like a fox.

Steve

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 21:08:51 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 30/12/2010 8:24 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>>
>> This doesn't really have to do with what the reviewer said about the
>> restaurant, though. It has to do with the behavior of the owner
>> towards the reviewer and her party.
>>
>> I am not even offering judgment on whether the reviewer's insistence
>> on anonymity in her line of work is sensible or defensible or
>> necessary or logical. That doesn't matter either.
>>
>> If the owner of the restaurant did not want the reviewer eating there
>> he could have discreetly asked her if she intended to review and if he
>> did not like her reply or even lack of one, he could have asked her to
>> leave and come back at some other time. It was soon after the opening
>> that she appeared, much earlier than she usually does to review, but
>> supposedly she was just casing the place casually. Quien sabe?
>>
>> But under any circumstances there was no need to take a photo and
>> splash it all over the net. Stupid move and very unprofessional. THAT
>> would be a reason not to patronize the place.
>>
>
>
>
>I am not familiar with her reviews, but, according to another article
>about that incident, the managing partner was upset about a review of
>another partner's restaurant and said that it was unnecessarily cruel.
>Some journalist's reviews are more about them ranting in their
>particular style. All they need is a target for their venom.
>
Read up on her a bit more. She isn't a flaming loon, she is a food
critic for THE paper in LA and has been there for 16 years. There are
going to be times when a restaurant really sucks and if she reports it
any less truthfully, she isn't doing her job.

These places are multi-million dollar investments and they come and go
like snowflakes. There is a reason. It isn't just one review that
makes or breaks them, either. Not these days. A lot of these places
are misbegotten money pits that charge diners huge sums for mediocre
food with a "because we can" mentality.

>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. She has felt free to profit by expressing her view about the work
>of other people. He merely turned the tables on her. Seems fair to me.

As I posted already, reviewers coming in without announcing intent is
really the norm, not the exception here in the US. And how did he turn
the tables on her? What you say makes no sense. She is a food writer.
She is paid to give opinions about restaurants. This is what she does.
The restaurateurs are paid to provide good food, service and ambience.
If they don't anyone and everyone should feel free to spread the word.
I mean, really, do you blame the Better Business Bureau when they
report that a contractor cuts corners or doesn't deliver? Companies
use "secret shoppers" to check up on things all the time. This is
nothing new or unique to restaurants.

Again, read up some more before siding with the management here. She
and her party were kept waiting 45 minutes past reservation time, the
partner who tossed her said that service was "hairy" that night and
hopes the incident will prevent her from reviewing the restaurant.
AND, that any review she produces has to be considered biased.

The restauranteur is a douchebag and a poor-thinking business person.
There really is such a thing as bad publicity. If the guy had half a
brain he could have easily and gracefully avoided this whole brouhaha.
He's a jerk. Really. A big one. In spades.

Boron

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:56:43 -0800, "Steve B"
> wrote:

>
>"Boron Elgar" > wrote
>
>> But under any circumstances there was no need to take a photo and
>> splash it all over the net. Stupid move and very unprofessional. THAT
>> would be a reason not to patronize the place.
>>
>> Boron
>
>To me, that would absolutely make me want to go and patronize the place.
>The restaurateur is saying, "Forget about the critics say. You come and be
>the judge." I'll bet there was a spike in business after this, and perhaps
>a continuing upswing. I would definitely tell the manager of chef that the
>reason I came in the first place was because of the incident, and then give
>an objective review of my own, even if it is just an "average person", and
>not a "experienced reviewer."
>
>Stupid like a fox.
>
>Steve
>
No one is under any obligation to dine or not dine according to what
any or all critics say. Why ever would you think anyone is?

> I'll bet he meant that they don't pay with their *own* money, not that
> they were getting a free meal from the restaurant.

Let's see. They don't put out any of their own, doesn't that make it free?

Steve

"ImStillMags" > wrote

> Reviewers always pay for their
>food.

With other people's credit cards ............. as noted in the newspaper
rebuttal.

Steve

"Lyndon Watson" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 31, 9:37 am, ImStillMags > wrote:
> I have agreed and disagreed with reviewers also. My statement was
> more to the way the reviewer was treated.

According to her own newspaper she booked under a false name. So we
know she is deceitful. I wouldn't want to do business with such a
person either.

* So then the restaurants should just start checking ID when the person
confirms their reservation.

No match of the name on the ID vs. the name used to make the reservation?
Photograph them, out them as a possible reviewer, kick them out of the
restaurant. That forces them to book under their name or someone else in
their party will have to confirm the reservation so that there is a name/ID
match. Even if they aren't a reviewer it will demand that they make
reservations with an actual real name, not a fake name.

Easy solution, problem solved. If necessary, explain to the customer that
it's due to newspaper reviewers being deceitful and making reservations with
assumed/false/fake names with the authorization of the newspapers publish
their reviews. Put a sign on the door and one by the reservation desk that
all reservations will require an ID check.

On Dec 31, 2:44*pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:09:07 -0800 (PST), Lyndon Watson
> > wrote:
> >According to her own newspaper she booked under a false name. *So we
> >know she is deceitful. *I wouldn't want to do business with such a
> >person either.
>
> I gather you do not know very much about such reviewers in the US. Do
> you really think they book under their own names?
>
> There are all sorts of stories about how the big city reviewers keep
> their identities hidden with different names, credit cards, wigs,
> large hats, etc.

I expect so. It only goes to support my point. Apparently reviewers
in general are liars.

LW

"Steve B" > wrote:

>Recorded most notably by Arthur Godfrey, Andrews Sisters, and Bobby Vinton.

Less notably, but more recently-- Drew Carrie and Frankie Yankovic-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGEsi6y0Ib4

Godfrey's version was a favorite of ours when we were kids. Mom &
dad had about six 78's and Too Fat Polka was one of them---


>Goes to show that everyone does not have the same taste ...............
>
>Oh, I don't want her, you can have her
>She's too fat for me
>She's too fat for me
-snip-

And back to the OP-- The restaurant shot themselves in the foot.
Temporary publicity isn't worth ****ing off folks who buy ink by the
barrel. You have to play the game.

There are few reviewers of anything that I pay any mind to-- but if I
saw someone fighting to *not* be reviewed, I could only conclude that
they were hiding something.

Jim

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> * So then the restaurants should just start checking ID when the
> person confirms their reservation.
>
> No match of the name on the ID vs. the name used to make the
> reservation? Photograph them, out them as a possible reviewer, kick
> them out of the restaurant. That forces them to book under their name
> or someone else in their party will have to confirm the reservation
> so that there is a name/ID match. Even if they aren't a reviewer it
> will demand that they make reservations with an actual real name, not
> a fake name.
>
> Easy solution, problem solved. If necessary, explain to the customer
> that it's due to newspaper reviewers being deceitful and making
> reservations with assumed/false/fake names with the authorization of
> the newspapers publish their reviews. Put a sign on the door and one
> by the reservation desk that all reservations will require an ID
> check.

(laugh) Hey, you wouldn't want to serve food to someone without
knowing their name, right? It's critical to the dining experience.

nancy

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 00:09:42 -0800 (PST), Lyndon Watson
> wrote:

>On Dec 31, 2:44*pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:09:07 -0800 (PST), Lyndon Watson
>> > wrote:
>> >According to her own newspaper she booked under a false name. *So we
>> >know she is deceitful. *I wouldn't want to do business with such a
>> >person either.
>>
>> I gather you do not know very much about such reviewers in the US. Do
>> you really think they book under their own names?
>>
>> There are all sorts of stories about how the big city reviewers keep
>> their identities hidden with different names, credit cards, wigs,
>> large hats, etc.
>
>I expect so. It only goes to support my point. Apparently reviewers
>in general are liars.
>
>LW

Hold on there....I must get out my measuring tape to determine just
how big an asshole you are.

Boron

"Nancy Young" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
>> * So then the restaurants should just start checking ID when the>> person
>> confirms their reservation.
>>
>> No match of the name on the ID vs. the name used to make the
>> reservation? Photograph them, out them as a possible reviewer, kick
>> them out of the restaurant.

> (laugh) Hey, you wouldn't want to serve food to someone without
> knowing their name, right? It's critical to the dining experience.

That could only be invented by the same mind that invented strip searches at
the airport. And certainly not a restaurateur who would know that people
not with their own spouses spend money.

?
"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote
>
> According to her own newspaper she booked under a false name. So we
> know she is deceitful. I wouldn't want to do business with such a
> person either.
>
> * So then the restaurants should just start checking ID when the person
> confirms their reservation.
>
> No match of the name on the ID vs. the name used to make the reservation?
> Photograph them, out them as a possible reviewer, kick them out of the
> restaurant. That forces them to book under their name or someone else in
> their party will have to confirm the reservation so that there is a
> name/ID match. Even if they aren't a reviewer it will demand that they
> make reservations with an actual real name, not a fake name.

That would kick out about 20% of the diners. People with difficult to
pronounce or spell names do it all the time. Who gives a crap? When I need
an ID to pick up a pizza, I'm moving out of the country.

Ed wrote on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:40:05 -0500:

> ?
> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote
>>
>> According to her own newspaper she booked under a false name.
>> So we know she is deceitful. I wouldn't want to do business with
>> such a person either.
>>
>> * So then the restaurants should just start checking ID when the
>> person confirms their reservation.
>>
>> No match of the name on the ID vs. the name used to make the
>> reservation? Photograph them, out them as a possible
>> reviewer, kick them out of the restaurant. That forces them
>> to book under their name or someone else in their party will have to
>> confirm the reservation so that there is a name/ID
>> match. Even if they aren't a reviewer it will demand that
>> they make reservations with an actual real name, not a fake
>> name.

>That would kick out about 20% of the diners. People with difficult to
>pronounce or spell names do it all the time. Who gives a crap? When I
>need an ID to pick up a pizza, I'm moving out of the country

I'm sure the notion of producing an ID when arriving for a reservation
has to be tongue-in-cheek. The first time a restaurant asked me for an
ID would be my last visit to the place.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

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

On 30/12/2010 11:11 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> reviews, but, according to another article
>> about that incident, the managing partner was upset about a review of
>> another partner's restaurant and said that it was unnecessarily cruel.
>> Some journalist's reviews are more about them ranting in their
>> particular style. All they need is a target for their venom.
>>
> Read up on her a bit more. She isn't a flaming loon, she is a food
> critic for THE paper in LA and has been there for 16 years. There are
> going to be times when a restaurant really sucks and if she reports it
> any less truthfully, she isn't doing her job.

Not much point in me reading restaurant reviews from the other side of
the continent and in another country.
>
> These places are multi-million dollar investments and they come and go
> like snowflakes. There is a reason. It isn't just one review that
> makes or breaks them, either. Not these days. A lot of these places
> are misbegotten money pits that charge diners huge sums for mediocre
> food with a "because we can" mentality.

it is a difficult business. There are enough things that can go wrong
and cause them to go under without some snotty critic running them down.

>
> Again, read up some more before siding with the management here. She
> and her party were kept waiting 45 minutes past reservation time, the
> partner who tossed her said that service was "hairy" that night and
> hopes the incident will prevent her from reviewing the restaurant.
> AND, that any review she produces has to be considered biased.
>
> The restauranteur is a douchebag and a poor-thinking business person.
> There really is such a thing as bad publicity. If the guy had half a
> brain he could have easily and gracefully avoided this whole brouhaha.
> He's a jerk. Really. A big one. In spades.


I am not sure about that. he may well gained a lot more positive results
than negative. There are always some that will side with the underdog,
even if he is wrong.

On 30/12/2010 11:18 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> No one is under any obligation to dine or not dine according to what
> any or all critics say. Why ever would you think anyone is?
>


How many people even read restaurant reviews or take them seriously?
Kicking out a critic and outing them and saying that it is because their
reviews are unnecessarily nasty...... that's bound to make one's
restaurant better known. The thing is that it doesn't really matter
that much if you have a good name or a bad name. the important thing is
to have a name. He got more exposure from kicking out the critic than
he would ever get from a review.

On 31/12/2010 9:52 AM, James Silverton wrote:

>
> I'm sure the notion of producing an ID when arriving for a reservation
> has to be tongue-in-cheek. The first time a restaurant asked me for an
> ID would be my last visit to the place.
>

I have enough trouble with store security staff wanting to inspect my
bags on the way into a store. If they choose to assume that I am a thief
I can shop elsewhere. If I were a lot younger I might have to tolerate
being carded to get alcohol. but I am not showing a waiter or a maitre
d' ID to get a table. It just ain't going to happen.

In article >,
"Steve B" > wrote:

> > I'll bet he meant that they don't pay with their *own* money, not that
> > they were getting a free meal from the restaurant.
>
> Let's see. They don't put out any of their own, doesn't that make it free?
>
> Steve

Not if it's part of the job. You've never been reimbursed for
job-related expenses? Traveling? IMO it's a free meal only if the
restaurant doesn't collect from anyone. I heard this a long time ago:
There's no such thing as a free lunch ‹ SOMEbody pays.

--
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