Food
blogs are funny things. Ultimately it is just one person's
snapshot view of a restaurant.
What would bring you to read my views on a restaurant you
may well never visit? I guess like all critics, as a s/he is read more and more, the reader
compares it with their
own experiences and they learn to trust the critic's
opinion, or not. They
may also come for the writing, or they may even come to satisfy their raging
food-porn obsession if the
blogger has spent a suitably grotesque amount of money on
the latest SLR wonder box of tricks. Did you SEE the bokeh
on those?!
Food
critics for the New York Times have rules about the number
of times they have
to eat at a restaurant before they can review it. As to with
the Michelin
process. Too many times have I seen negative reviews because
the kitchen sent a
few bad plates out of the thousands that week. It may even
have been the only bad plates
to get through the pass all year. Nonetheless, bloggers
often write up a
scathing review and move on to the next terrified bastard holding everyone to Michelin levels.
For things that are
cheaper like burgers/street food, I will generally try to go
several times before writing it up.
I understand that everyone pays the same amount for each plate but if only 1% of the orders are duds then it is
unfair to say the quality is poor if you’ve only
been once and gotten unlucky.
