How do you rate a restaurant?

[Marlyn4k]

Presumably restaurant guides and critics the world over face the same dilemma. Is it purely a question of the food? And within that there lies the matter of ingredients, complexity, imagination, style, consistency and so on.

Many UK web sites that review restaurants place as much emphasis on other factors such as front-of-house, the wine list, the atmosphere, the setting and naturally, the cost.

So what makes a sensibly weighted review, and in the process something useful to the would-be customer?

[kuan]

In general, only one thing, and that is whether the restaurant meets its own expectations.

I give McDonald's five stars because I know what to expect and they almost always deliver. But of course a Filet 'o Fish would not do too well at Alain Ducasse.

Kuan

[Pete]

Thank you Kuan!!! This is the point of view that I have been trying to get across to people for years. So many restaurant critics tend to confuse cost with quality (aka Charlie Trotter recieves 4 stars while the local diner only recieves one). I have always tried to measure a restaurant by what it is attempting to be. As such, many of the "best" restaurants in Chicago don't score very high, in my book, while some of the lowliest, grungiest diners score very high. It's all a matter of figuring out what a restaurant is trying to be, then evaluating it against itself. There are so many different types of restaurants out there that to do anything other than that is futile. It's like comparing apples to oranges to bananas. How can you compare those things?

[Jim]

Good question. I almost always ground my opinion on the 'experience.' Certainly we go to a restaurant for the food becuase we are hungry. However, some attention must be paid to everything else that makes it a restaurant versus eating at home. And, yes, Mcdonald's rises to their expectation; it's just that their expectation is not set as high as some others.
And, I agree with Pete as well. Often the 'best' restaurants are the most expensive or, conversely, there are dives ranked with some high-end places. They are not comparable. The true measure is to ask: Do they hit their mark?

[Headless Chicken]

If the food has good quality within a price range, then its a winner IMO.

[Suzanne]

Ah, the eternal debate among people who love to eat in restaurants!

Here's my list:

• Food, of course -- are the ingredients the best quality the place can get for their appropriate price point? Are those ingredients treated with respect? Does the kitchen know when to "enhance" something and when to leave it alone? Are the portions/plating appropriate to the concept, the abilities of the staff, and the price point?
• Responsiveness and knowledge of servers -- are they there when I need them and otherwise not intrusive? Can they answer all my questions about the food and drink? And if they can't, do they try to find the answers on a timely basis?
• Wine list, other beverages (especially coffee and tea) -- are there items in a reasonable price range that I expect to go well with my food? If I need help because I am unfamiliar with what's offered (food, wine, or both), is it offered graciously and fully? Are there other interesting beverages available (I don't ALWAYS want wine)? Is the coffee good (by my standards, of course)? Is there a good selection of tea, REAL tea, available?
• Noise level -- ambient, as well as from music and/or nearby or not so nearby conversations: Can I concentrate on my food/drink/companion(s) without aural distraction? If we want to talk, can we do so without shouting? Am I forced to listen to other peoples' conversations?
• Decor and furnishings -- are they distracting, or do they enhance the experience? Am I physically comfortable?
• Restrooms -- clean? Well-stocked with the necessities? Comfortable?
• Hello and goodbye -- am I acknowledged at both ends, with a pleasant greeting and a pleasant farewell, in a timely fashion?
• In general -- If the place is clearly trying to make me say "Wow," should it be, given everything else? And does it succeed, or does it make me say "Why??"
• If I'm a repeat customer -- is the place as consistent as possible on all of the above?
• And down at the very end -- Does the place fulfill all of the above as I think it should, all things considered, at an appropriate price point? Do I feel it's all worth what I'm paying, whether a lot, a little, or something in between?

[Marlyn4k]

Suzanne makes the point brilliantly. T

To guide a would-be customer - and after all that is the role of the reviewer/critic - each of those elements should be addressed.

If the review is open prose covering those factors then the reader can attach their own weightings. For example, depending upon my mood, I would be prepared to sacrifice some quality in kitchen output for setting and service because that would fit with my criteria for the desired 'experience'.

However, reading the Guides available in the UK, (Michelin, The Good Food Guide, The AA Guide) they cover only a fraction of these points.

Instead the Guides prefer to focus on a rating; One Star, 6/10 or Three Rosettes. How should the reader presume these have been derived? What weighting has been given to those important parameters of the dining experience so expertly raised by Suzanne?

Would it therefore make sense for such publications to present their criteria as strongly as their ratings?

[pumpkingrl]

Check out, Eating My Words, by Mimi Sheraton. She used to write for the NY Times as a food critic and many other notable publications. She dedicates practically a whole chapter to this issue. Very interesting read.