"Tough to Swallow" ~ Alberta Seniors

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Rerun

So basically you're emplying that the average joe/ unwashed masses are served one type of food while restaurant critics get the good stuff (I assume they keep it in the back) thus the need for restaurant critic annomymity, thereby not allowing the restaurant to hoodwink said critic by serving him the good stuff and all the time he thinks that this is what EVERYONE gets to eat.
.... hmmm... those sneaky little buggers. Who knew?

Well thats it! Next time I go out to a restaurant I'm going to DEMAND I be served the good stuff that they save for restaurant critics, like Mr Gilchrist.

Oh Rerun. You are so helpless sometimes.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec...ritic-20101223

If restaurant staffers know you're a critic with wide readership, Virbila said, they change their behavior and sometimes even serve different food. Essentially, "it's not an accurate representation of the restaurant."

http://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Food-Critic

Don't become recognizable. Anonymity is important to the career of a food critic; once people know who you are, they'll try especially hard to make sure you enjoy their food which, while nice, can interfere with your review of the food. After all, your readers won't get that kind of treatment, and your job is to let them know what they can expect as an average person, not a food critic. [2]
Make reservations under a fake name (or else they might recognize your real name with what's published in the paper) and keep a low profile (don't go to benefits, wine dinners, or other gatherings
Don't appear on television or participate as a celebrity in events; don't accept offers to try a chef's cuisine).
Failing to keep your anonymity intact may warrant a lot of criticism from readers.[3]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1473733.html

While the discussion over restaurant criticism and anonymity is seemingly endless and often rehashed, most major newspapers still attempt at hiding their critics' appearances, despite the increased challenges with such a social sharing-friendly world (see: Eater's "To Catch A Critic"). Still, there remains a compelling argument for not having a mug shot out there -- one can't help but be reminded of Ruth Reichl's famous 1993 review of Le Cirque in which she goes in disguised and has a dramatically different experience than when she was recognized as herself.

But 1993 is a long time away from 2012 and the food world has changed significantly. Critics aren't just expected to critique. They are often required to blog and engage with readers much more directly, as Schaffer explained to the Washington Post. They are required to know chefs, yet avoid actually knowing them personally.

As new -- and younger -- critics are hired, it may simply become impossible to mask their identity. What 20 or 30-something isn't on Facebook these days? New York Times critic Pete Wells isn't advertising what he looks like, but as he lived in the world of digital media before becoming the paper's restaurant critic, he isn't exactly a mystery man. Nor was Sam Sifton before him.

http://la.eater.com/archives/2012/05...circa_2005.php

Rodell once wrote a piece for Creative Loafing titled "Dining critic anonymity: the hard truth" where she states her case on anonymous restaurant critics: "I reject the notion that anonymity doesn't matter. I notice a palpable change when I've been recognized at a restaurant. Sometimes it makes no difference – the better the restaurant the truer this is. If service and food are genuinely stellar, they'll be stellar for everyone. But sometimes it makes a world of difference...While many of the chefs in town [Atlanta] know what I look like, and although I am occasionally recognized, I don't think that's the end of the battle. I haven't yet taken to wearing disguises (mainly because it seems silly, self-important and probably futile), but I don't let the game end just because I'm identifiable." Have a more recent Rodell photo, do send it our way.

http://eater.com/archives/2010/04/19...ield-guide.php

It's a reality that restaurant reviews from print media publications continue to hold the most authority in the food world. And while some critics downplay the importance of anonymity, the argument can be made that knowing a critic is in the house can help chefs and business owners present their restaurant in the best way possible.

Somehow, a fair amount of critics have successfully avoided having their photographs made public.

http://www.openfile.ca/halifax/halif...aurant-critics

In 2005, Ruth Reichl published Garlic and Sapphires: The Secret Life Of A Critic in Disguise about her experience as restaurant critic for The New York Times. In it she details the myriad ways—wigs, costumes and makeup lessons—she worked to make herself as anonymous as possible.

But is it possible to be anonymous as a food critic when social media and our increased online presence has changed the way we view—and allow others to view—our lives?

Facebook and Twitter have changed the way we curate our private lives. For most people, this is a non-issue, but for food critics, staying anonymous has always been a major concern.

“I think that the reader of a restaurant review wants the person to be an everyman (or everywoman) who gets the same treatment they do, and nine times out of ten, that experience is an anonymous one,” says Melissa Buote. Melissa is the food critic for The Coast and has been writing about food for the past two and half years. (Full disclosure: Buote and I also write for the same food blog, Passable.ca)

To maintain her anonymity, Melissa strictly limits access to her Facebook profile—even using a pseudonym—and her Twitter profile shows a picture of a cat.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Rerun

So basically you're emplying that the average joe/ unwashed masses are served one type of food while restaurant critics get the good stuff (I assume they keep it in the back) thus the need for restaurant critic annomymity, thereby not allowing the restaurant to hoodwink said critic by serving him the good stuff and all the time he thinks that this is what EVERYONE gets to eat.
.... hmmm... those sneaky little buggers. Who knew?

Well thats it! Next time I go out to a restaurant I'm going to DEMAND I be served the good stuff that they save for restaurant critics, like Mr Gilchrist.

I just sent this link to my friend, who's sister is a food critic. She is killing herself laughing.

[Rerun]

Well I happen to know a couple of people that own restaurants .... and everybody gets served the same food... critic or not.

To think that you have to go around in disquise when you review a restaurant is probably a huge embellishment on your own importance in this world and a mistaken belief that if they know who you are, you'll get better food than what they normally serve....

Sure ... the service might be a bit better... its only natural that the waiter tries harder if they know you're a critic... but the chef will cook your meal the same way and use the same ingredients that he's used every other time for the same dish that same night....

I don't care what all your links say... its still bull####.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Its been proven in I don't even know how many studies that people perform differently when they are being watched and judged. If you know a critic is coming, and you know his review can help or hurt your restaurant, you're going to deliver the highest level of service that can be delivered, often going above and beyond the call of a regular service. I understand in theory you expect that everytime, but it simply doesn't happen. The chefs will use the same ingredients and and make it the same way, its just they will cook and watch the critic served meals with extreme dilligence and care, whereas with a standard order (and likely on a busy night), you can't realistically expect the same level of care.

The critics should want to remain anonymous to get the "Standard" service a random, unknown customer would get, as that best mimics the experience the average consumer will get. Its not the critics job to ensure they get the restaurants best effort, rather that they get the treatment any customer would get so they can accurately relay what an experience at a given restaurant is like.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I don't care what all your links say... its still bull####.

Good ol' Rerun. When faced with overwhelming evidence, he ignores it.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Good ol' Rerun. When faced with overwhelming evidence, he ignores it.

Yeah this guy just kind of landed on my radar this week. So he's always like this? Is he a troll or is this dude for real?

[flamesfever]

Leave him alone. I hate this gangup BS. He's generally a worthy contributor.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Leave him alone. I hate this gangup BS. He's generally a worthy contributor.

What group gang up? Oversensitive much? He's ignoring facts (not for the first time) and he's being called on it.

[Phanuthier]

Not to mention his rude and condescending tone to others, despite being wrong...

The entitled generation could really use some humility.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Good ol' Rerun. When faced with overwhelming evidence, he ignores it.

Just because you find your evidence on the internet, it doesn't make it true. Most of this evidence is just somebody elses opinion.
I can find lots of "evidence" that proves that astronauts never landed on the moon or that the jewish holocaust never happened.... again this "evidence" doesn't prove anything.

Find me some scientific, authentic studies about this whole restaurant critic thing that backs up your claims and I'll concede that I'm wrong.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yeah this guy just kind of landed on my radar this week. So he's always like this? Is he a troll or is this dude for real?

I've been a member here for the past 5-1/2 years... longer than you in fact.
Just because I may disagree with some of you doesn't make me a troll. The only reason YOU think I'm one is because of your stand or position (which I completely disagree with .... and I'm not the only one) in this thread.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Leave him alone. I hate this gangup BS. He's generally a worthy contributor.

Thanks

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

What group gang up? Oversensitive much? He's ignoring facts (not for the first time) and he's being called on it.

What facts...enlighten me with some facts.... just not other people's opinion.

I have my opinions and you have yours. Prove to me that mine is wrong... with facts.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Here's a non-scientific "study" that proves why you're wrong Rerun. Say you are working and you know the boss is there....are you gonna bust ass as hard as possible or slack off? Lets say you don't know what your boss looks like. If he comes in and is judging you, without you having any knowledge, you're going to work like you normally do.

Conversly, when you're a restaurant and you know the person who just walked into your restaurant is the food critic for the daily newspaper, are you going to give the greatest service ever, or the usual service? A bad review can destroy you and a good one can help immensely, so obviously you are going to go out of your way for exceptional service.

Essentially, the only way to provide an accurate description of what a normal service will be (and thats what a food critic's job is) is to act like a normal customer without any profile. Having your picture everywhere automatically removes any possibility the critic will receive the normal service because they have a big profile. If you want your critics well known, then don't complain when you go to the restaurant and get markedly different service than the "known" food critic got.

[Dion]

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Not to mention his rude and condescending tone to others, despite being wrong...

The entitled generation could really use some humility.

Sorry that that when you read my posts you see a rude and condescending attitude.

In future, I shall try to do my best to eliminate any words or sentences that may be interpreted as rude and condescending.

I apoligize for any offense given.

[undercoverbrother]

I know what this thread is about, but everytime I see the title I think of seniors having oral sex.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Here's a non-scientific "study" that proves why you're wrong Rerun. Say you are working and you know the boss is there....are you gonna bust ass as hard as possible or slack off? Lets say you don't know what your boss looks like. If he comes in and is judging you, without you having any knowledge, you're going to work like you normally do.

Conversly, when you're a restaurant and you know the person who just walked into your restaurant is the food critic for the daily newspaper, are you going to give the greatest service ever, or the usual service? A bad review can destroy you and a good one can help immensely, so obviously you are going to go out of your way for exceptional service.

Essentially, the only way to provide an accurate description of what a normal service will be (and thats what a food critic's job is) is to act like a normal customer without any profile. Having your picture everywhere automatically removes any possibility the critic will receive the normal service because they have a big profile. If you want your critics well known, then don't complain when you go to the restaurant and get markedly different service than the "known" food critic got.

I know and see where you're coming from... however, I probably give as much effort in my job whether or not the boss is around or not.... but then again I take pride in my work and don't have 2 different work or performance levels.

And I am making the assumptions that restaurants operate the same way. Sure a good review may help a restaurants business and a bad review may affect it somewhat negatively... but the best reviews are people telling other people about such and such restaurant and what great food and service there was. This is what a restaurant survives on... not some 500 word article in the newspaper that will be forgotten by next week.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I know what this thread is about, but everytime I see the title I think of seniors having oral sex.

God... I wish you hadn't said that.. I now have a mental picture of just that... ewww.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I know and see where you're coming from... however, I probably give as much effort in my job whether or not the boss is around or not.... but then again I take pride in my work and don't have 2 different work or performance levels.

And I am making the assumptions that restaurants operate the same way. Sure a good review may help a restaurants business and a bad review may affect it somewhat negatively... but the best reviews are people telling other people about such and such restaurant and what great food and service there was. This is what a restaurant survives on... not some 500 word article in the newspaper that will be forgotten by next week.

I actually agree with you 100% on this fact. I've never read a restaurant review in my life that made me go out and try a restaurant (admitedly, food critics eat much differently than I), but when friends recommend me a restaurant I'm much more likely to go.

Even still though, it should be on the critic to ensure when they do offer a review that it is what the standard customer would expect in terms of service. Even the most minor details can matter (getting drinks/appys earlier than a normal order as an example). I think a critic who attempts to conceal their identity will offer a more realistic representation of the restaurant than one who knowingly has their identity out there.