What should I include in restaurant reviews?

What makes you believe you are qualified to rate a restaurant?????
What is your expert background.????

You ask an interesting question. What are the qualifications of a restaurant reviewer? If you travel 50% of the time and therefore eat 50% of your meals in a restaurant, is that sufficient experience to decide what's good and what's bad, or is this option limited to those who are professionally trained in the culinary arts? The analogy is the local music critic who is trained but has never left his small town vs. the the untrained person who has great appreciation and has been to events in many large cities. Who is better qualified to determine the merits of the performance? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I really just want to know.

Unlike Ed, I don't think you have to be an expert as such to review a restaurant. But with the list you have above, the first 4 can easily be handled by a star or number system, as with the Zagat guides. Then there's a brief descriptive paragraph doing the "unique factors" thing. While the result is valuable if lots of people do it, as with Zagat's again, it's not worth much if one guy does it independently.

First of all, where are you coming from? I mean, are you an ex-professional line cook who did mostly French but did a stint at a sushi place? Did you go to cooking school and bail out from your first job? Do you just like to eat out places? Are you an avid and obsessive cookbook reader? And so on. These things matter, and they should be made clear to your reader -- I hope not as an up-front "here's who I am, blah blah" kind of thing, but it should be clear throughout.

Here's why. Suppose you review a Chinese restaurant that you love. You've eaten at a bunch of Chinese restaurants over the years. You don't cook Chinese at home, have no such cookbooks or anything, and you don't read or speak Chinese. At base, your knowledge of what you're eating is entirely a matter of what you've liked and not liked, what seems to be normal on menus in places you've eaten, what some guy told you once, and so on. All of that is legitimate in a reviewer -- it really is. But it is not at all legitimate for that reviewer to make grand pronouncements about quality, or worse, about authenticity.

Think about reviews you read (and if you don't read a lot of reviews, you shoudn't be planning to write them). How often have you read, "for terrific, authentic Mexican food, El Blah Blah is the best place in Munchieburg." Really? What's "authentic" Mexican food, precisely? Does the reviewer have any qualifications to make a statement about it? Or has this reviewer just gotten some vague notions from seeing Rick Bayless on TV and decided it's okay to shoot his or her mouth off?

Now if on the other hand you are very hard-core about some cuisine, have done a great deal of work learning about it in every way possible, then it is okay for you to make statements like this. You don't have to have cooked professionally, but you have to know what you're talking about.

If you're just a happy eater, like so many reviewers, I suggest that you make this clear. Make it a selling point, actually -- an honest happy-eater-type reviewer would be practically unique! For example, "Dave's Sushi Bar serves great food. Some people say it's not very authentic, but frankly, I doubt they know any more about what sushi is like in Tokyo than I do, which isn't much. What I can tell you is that the prices are good, the fish is fresh, and Dave puts on a wonderful show for those who sit right up at the bar. I had..." and so on. Notice what this does: it says what you are and aren't, it says what you like, and it gets us right to the heart of the matter with the restaurant.

Ultimately, a review is not a list of factors. Not a good review, anyway. A good review is an essay. It's not an easy thing to write. The first thing to get clear is who and what you are and aren't, and to start building a voice around that. The second is to start writing scads of imaginary reviews, samples, sketches of reviews of places you've liked and hated. Once your prose is good, your voice is clear, and you have a strong sense of what you want your reviews to look like, you're ready to actually start reviewing.

I suggest that you look at some reviews by great reviewers. Craig Claiborne was fabulous. Ruth Reichl I don't like, myself, but certainly she was very well respected. Look at Calvin Trillin, the greatest American food writer: his "Tummy Trilogy" is genius, albeit not really restaurant reviews as such. Think about what these people do, how they write, that makes them effective.

Don't kid yourself. Any kind of writing is hard work and serious business. Far too many restaurant reviewers think that being passionate about eating makes up for other failings. They're wrong.

The analogy is a good one, but it needs to be drawn out a bit.

1. small-town vs. big-town concert-goer
2. 2 years of piano lessons when you were a kid vs. advanced performance training
3. can sort of read music vs. have foundational composition training
4. recognize some favorites vs. deeply knowledgeable about several musical eras
5. listen only vs. study scores

and so on.

If the only person qualified to review a concert is in the second half of every category, there will be very few reviewers. More than you'd think, but few.

But isn't the first guy, on the left in every column, qualified too? What's his claim: "I don't know much in an expert way, I can't make general statements, but I think that folks like me -- who let's face it are a pretty large constituency -- will find it very helpful to have a review from their own perspective."

The usual problem, I think, is that reviews (perhaps especially restaurant reviews) come from people who are sorta-kinda knowledgeable and think they're experts. They tell you about the extraordinary freshness of the fish (the cooks are giggling -- they know the tuna was frozen), the exciting new creations (cribbed from an old Nouvelle Cuisine cookbook), and so on. They tell you about authentic this and that when they don't know anything beyond what they saw on Food Network. And these people's reviews are the overwhelming majority.

Anyone can review, but almost nobody who reviews is honest enough to make the reviews worthwhile.

Let me add to Chris's thoughts a little.

No matter what the discipline, all reviewers learn their trade on a do-it-yourself basis. There is no place you go to learn how to review books, or films, or restaurants, or philharmonic concerts.

So, rule number one: At base, reviewers are hobbiests. There are notable exceptions. And sometimes reviewers go on to obtain formal training in their discipline. But, basically, they start out by being passionate about the subject and having some ability to communicate. That last is the real key. Unfortunately, more often than not, they have no writing ability. Or there is a germ of talent, but it never gets developed properly. So the world is filled with bad reviews.

But the fact is, too, that those with the passion and basic talent, if they persevere, eventually emerge as reviewers one pays attention to.

Now then, as to formal training or not, I would say it doesn't really matter if the passion and talent are there. Let's look at the Cheftalk book review staff as an example. I don't think anyone would argue with the statement that we run some of the finest cookbook reviews available.

We've worked very hard to build that staff, and are constantly looking to add to it. But we reject a lot of applicants as well. If we look at the background of the staff, we find it just about equally divided between professionals in the food service industry and foodies with no formal training. Among the rejects, professionals outnumber nonprofessionals---which is a logical expectation. Their skill is in cooking. Why whould we expect them to be good writers as well?

When I was consulting to trade magazines I often ran into this problem on a larger scale. Publishers wanted to hire practitioners to edit the magazine. A medical book should, they felt, be edited by a doctor; an engineering book by an engineer; etc. My question always was: If he's such a good doctor, why does he want to edit your magazine, and how does he have the time? And if he's not so good a doctor, why would you want him to edit your magazine?

But I digress.

Our cookbook review staff all started out good, and got better as they went along because of good editing. I don't mean the kind of editor that merely corrects spelling errors, but the kind who trains the writers. When a correction is made, I explain the reasons behind it. And, because our staff is good to begin with, they take those lessons to heart, and their writing just gets better.

One of the overall problems with reviews is that the reviewer usuallly doesn't have that kind of help available. So even if he or she has basic talent, they don't grow and expand their abilities because there's nobody to help guide them. Again, those able to break out, to improve on their own, stand above the pack.

So, all in all, I say to jaytuk: Hey! If this is something you want to do; and if you think you've got the chops for it; then go for it. Lack of professional training is not a hinderance.

problems with restaurant reviews

Putting aside questions of the reviewer's talents, a contributing factor to why there are so many bad reviews is budget.

The ideal review of a restaurant includes three visits. The first two are blind, and at least one of them should be done on a weekend. The reviewer is accompanied by his/her partner and another couple. And all four of them order different things each time. After the third visit the reviewer identifies him/herself, and asks to meet the chef and see the kitchen.

Because very few media are willing to pay for that process, and because the reviewer certainly can't afford it out of pocket, we most often get less than the ideal.

When I was a lot younger I served an apprenticeship in the Essex House In New York. The chef was Swiss trained Erie Meier who reresented the Us in the culinary olympics in 1955. The director of catering came into the kitchen with a banquet manager who was an upcomeing star? They both proceeded to taste a pinkish colored sauce in the steam table They both said it tasted bad and they did not like it .The chef asked them do you know what it is? they said no. He said then how do you know it taste bad if you dont know what it is. I aquait this to some food critics and reviewers. Cant help it. No you dont have to be a chef to review but at least know what you are reviewing.:D

Ed, the fact is, though, that even if they had known what it was, it would still have tasted bad to them. So, let's call that sauce, oh, I don't know, reduced beet juice with sour cream.

Instead of reacting, "that pink stuff really tastes bad," they'd have said, "that reduced beet juice in sour cream really tastes bad." But nothing would have changed. It would still have been bad tasting, whether they knew what it was called or not.

You've made it abundently clear, in this and other threads, that you have a fundemental attitude that those who write about food really don't understand it, and that those of you who prepare it professionally know every so much more about it.

That's just not the case. I know many a foodie, and serious home cook, and, yes, food writer who can cook rings around many a professional. And just because a chef puts crap on the table because his reputation lets him get away with it doesn't make it any less crap.

For what my opinion is worth (or about 2 cents.....:rolleyes:)

When I lived in Atlanta we, as Chefs, lived and died by the pen of Elliot Mackle. In the circles I ran we actually had another name for him but I won't mention it here.;) I will say it sounded like his first name though. :look:

Anyhow, I hated it. We all did....for the most part. The theory behind opinions are like..............everyone has one and they all smell....comes to mind about many of his reviews and not just his reviews of my work.

As a Chef who has been critiqued by a couple food critics over the years....... all I suggest is be fair, be honest, be objective and show some compassion. As a Chef, I believe that there are those out there that don't belong in a kitchen. Yet for those that do, they have a bad day's and it happens to be the one day you visit, they also work for unreasonable, unethical, irresponsible and inmature owners (This is now way should reflect on the Chef but often does) and they are doing their level best to make ends meet or tur a loaf of bread into 50 with no divine intervention...just skill, gut's and a great deal of determination.

Maybe show a bit of compassion for those that may be suffering through the things I mentioned as well as show some respect for the poor guy or gal that is wading their way through a sea of menutia trying to do the best they can. It's all a personal opinion in the end. In other words, be a good shepard of the flock of many mindless folks that use the review instead of drawing their own conclusion.

True many foodies are great cooks and I know a lady that is one of best bakers I have ever met who is a housewife. The fact remains they are not pawning themselves off as reviewers or critics. In fact Craig Clayborn from the NY Times was a great cook, he teamed with Franey who made him even better. They complimented one another.There are chefs and there are chefs, anyone who puts out crap as you say is not a good chef because he or she has no pride in what they do, or may not know what to do and shoulod not be called a chef. Then there are writers and critics who may not know what their doing. I am not saying all, or generalizing but as in anything there are good and bad. I think the customer should be the final judge. If they dont like it they wont be back and they will advise their friends and associates.of their experiences and that particular place will fail.

Claiborne went to Swiss hotel school and got pretty serious training. And it's true, it is extremely helpful to have expert knowledge of what you're reviewing. But you're taking things too far in suggesting that (a) only chefs can review restaurants, and (b) reviews are a bad idea anyway because the customer should be his or her own critic.

As I said before, a review is an essay. The question is whether the essay is any good or not. With restaurant reviews, there are certain notions of practical value that have come to dominate excessively, and that's also led to the longstanding reality that certain reviewers have make-or-break power in a given city. That's very unfortunate, but insisting that such reviewers have to be chefs doesn't make much sense: chefs can be as vicious, narrow-minded, pigheaded, and obnoxious as anyone else.

Consider music concert reviews. What's the point? Most of the time, the concert is only performed once or at most twice, usually on consecutive days, and so by the time you read the review there is little or no possibility that you might hear the concert. But nevertheless music criticism like this is an old and admirable tradition.

The basic problem, in my opinion, is that 99% of restaurant reviews consist of

1. what did I eat
2. did I like it
3. what "color" can I put in to describe the place

In order for that to be of any value, the reader must already know a lot about the reviewer. That's not criticism, it's a statement of opinion, more or less clearly expressed. Criticism implies analysis of some kind, on the basis of something. Serious music criticism requires some expert knowledge of the music in question, but that doesn't mean the reviewer has to be a musician. Just so, serious food criticism requires expert knowledge of the food in question, but that doesn't mean you have to be a chef. I have seen several very stupid reviews of Japanese restaurants, written by people with at least some serious experience in the professional (French/American) kitchen. Why are they stupid? Because these people have expert knowledge of some food but not this food, and they prate as though they knew everything. Rick Bayless is a pretty good chef, it is generally agreed, but I could care less what he thinks about some local Chinese restaurant... unless of course he were to frame his remarks in terms of what he does and doesn't know. And that's where almost no reviewers are honest.

Frankly, I'd rather read a review by an honest, open-minded, passionate eater who makes no claims to specialist knowledge than one by an expert chef who doesn't know much about what he's eating and thinks he's an expert anyway.

Where I agree with you, though, is that the majority of reviews are the worst of both worlds. They're by people who don't have expert knowledge of any food, yet who think they should pretend to it because that's what reviewers are supposed to sound like. That is useless, destructive, and dishonest. And, of course, usual.

>that's also led to the longstanding reality that certain reviewers have make-or-break power in a given city. <

The question becomes, how did that power emerge?

The answer is, the reviewer earned it. To have make-or-break power means that a significant portion of the dining public in that area believes that the reviewer knows what he/she is talking about; that his/her opinion is valid; and that if they went to that restaurant they'd have an experience similar to what the reviewer says.

Something else we lose sight of: A restaurant review is just that, a review of the restuarant, and encompasses the entire experience. While chefs like to think it's all about them, that just isn't the case. Certainly the food should have a starring role. But if I'm writing a review of a place, where the food is always first rate but the service sucks, then it will likely be a negative review overall. If the chef wants to take that as a reflection of his/her food, that's an ego problem with the chef. But the fact still remains that the service sucks.

Chris, the one place we disagree is with the notion of "color." A reviewer has to be aware of what his/her readers want to know. So, yes, a good review is an essay. But it 1. should not go too far afield from the actual venue being reviewed, and 2. must include descriptions of the ambience, and furnishing because that's what readers want to know.

If you were to do a poll of restaurant review readers, those who pay attention to the reviewer, and asked them the #1 question they have about a restaurant, it isn't "is the food good?" Their #1 question is "Will I enjoy the dining experience?" A reviewer who doesn't answer that question might, from a literary point of view, have one of the best reviews ever written. But he/she won't be successful with the audience. And that's who counts.

As usual, KY, I agree with you just about completely. A few small points...

Quite so. Craig Claiborne, for example, earned his power, and he's only the most famous of the "old guard." The problem -- and it is a real one -- is that Claiborne et al. also set some precedents:

1. Many reviewers try to write as though they too had earned this right. Stylistically, it's not that difficult to sound authoritative in a brief review if you have decent prose. This leads into the problem I was discussing before about reviewers pretending to know what they're talking about when they don't. You don't have to be a chef, but you should know what you're talking about. There was a review, I believe in New York Magazine, online somewhere, of a recently-opened restaurant under the aegis of Vongerichten. It's a Japanese place, doing mostly classic standards, some sushi, some other things. The reviewer trashed the place for several reasons. For one thing, the sushi was boring, the same old thing, nothing terribly creative. For another, they have dishes like shabu-shabu that you have to cook yourself at the table, which is ridiculous in a fancy restaurant. Clearly, this reviewer knows nothing whatever about medium high-end Tokyo food, and yet his writing suggests that he has every right to blitz the place.

2. Because Claiborne and others gained the power to make or break a place, every reviewer wants that power, it seems, and this means that restaurants can end up living in fear of reviewers. This is I think why Ed is so worked up about reviewers. It's one thing if somebody who had really earned his stripes becomes the voice of doom, and it's another if every wannabe takes potshots in hopes of being thought clever. One of the wonderful things about the film "Ratatouille" was the reviewer, Anton Ego, remarking in his review monologue that negative criticism is fun to write and enjoyable to read, but it becomes all too easy to miss the good stuff because you're always looking for nits to pick (he put it better). He's right.
We don't disagree at all. I mean a review in which "color" is nothing more than that. A review that could be boiled down as follows:

food was pretty good
the duck was creative
price was high but not outrageous
the place was kind of noisy
commentary about the reviewer's personal sense of style and how it conflicts with the choice of tableware

In a real review, a good review, color is framework. It sets up the piece, gives life to the place reviewed, and brings context to the food, concept, service, and so on. It's the hardest part, and the one that makes the difference between a Zagat squib and a real review.

The absolute master of this is Calvin Trillin, who manages to write entire essays about food that seem to be 99% color and background, always witty, always charming, always personal. Reading a Trillin article, you know Trillin. And although he doesn't really review restaurants, if he did, you wouldn't have to hear a lot of noise about whether the squab was authentic to know whether you'd like the place -- and you might not agree with Trillin. You'd just know, "okay, he likes the place, I get just what this place is like, and I don't think it's for me." That is extraordinary.

Incidentally, KY, it's not quite true that you can't learn to write reviews the way you can learn other things. You can. And if you think about it, you know this very well indeed. You learn by learning to write. You read immense numbers of reviews, and steal phrasing, structure, and images that really sing. You make these your own, like all good writers do. You develop a voice, a style of your own. And you drive everything through this one obsessive focus on food, in its totality -- taste, appearance, smell, table setting, service, decor, style, concept, all of it. For some people, learning to cook very well is an essential part of this; for others, it's irrelevant. Trillin, by his own account, isn't terribly good with a microwave or a toaster -- it was Alice who did all the cooking. He just eats. But nobody who's read Calvin Trillin thinks he doesn't know food, doesn't know what he eats inside and out, isn't giving a lucid and honest appraisal of what he eats.

As I say, you and I agree entirely. Right?

>As I say, you and I agree entirely. Right? <

Or close enough to make no never mind.

>Incidentally, KY, it's not quite true that you can't learn to write reviews the way you can learn other things. <

Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant there are no formal venues for learning that job. There is no class in journalism school called "restaurant review writing 101." Nor book, nor movie, nor concert review writing 101.

No matter what the discipline, reviewers learn to do it as an on-the-job thing. Mostly they start out as somebody with an interest in the subject, and start doing reviews. In the ideal world, as they improve their own knowledge and skill they get better jobs.

As it turns out, reviewers, as a class, usually start out working for free. They write for the local shopper, or, more likely nowadays, contribute to blogs, etc. If they're any good, and they want to pursue it, they then graduate to paying jobs. Small newspapers that pay them, maybe, five bucks a review. Eventually, if they're really good andt what they do, maybe the NY Times and Washington Post hire them.

>Stylistically, it's not that difficult to sound authoritative in a brief review if you have decent prose. This leads into the problem I was discussing before about reviewers pretending to know what they're talking about when they don't. <

All that is true. But, as the old saw has it, fool me once, same on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. If you visit a restaurant, and find it the antithesis of what a reviewer says, well, maybe it was just a difference of opinion. If the same thing happens several times, then it becomes obvious that the reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about, and nobody pays any attention.

There are all sorts of reasons why a poor reviewer might remain on the job. But that person never achieves a position where he/she actually influences anybody. Among decent chefs, that reviewer is an object of amusement and scorn, not somebody they're afraid of.

If somebody who actually influences people pans a restaurant there usually are good reasons for it. And the ones who complain the loudest about bad reviews are the ones who earned them in the first place.

>This is I think why Ed is so worked up about reviewers. <

I don't think so. But we can discuss that privately if you want.

We're on the same page. I'm more cynical than you are, that's all. Your world is a nicer, happier place than the one I live in.

In this straitened economy, what does it cost to move to your place? :lol:

""Where I agree with you, though, is that the majority of reviews are the worst of both worlds. They're by people who don't have expert knowledge of any food, yet who think they should pretend to it because that's what reviewers are supposed to sound like. That is useless, destructive, and dishonest. And, of course, usual. ""

Chris
I agree you dont have to be a chef to review, just a bit more knowlege of foods.

Upon reflection, are we, perhaps, confusing a "review" with a "critique"?

To me, although I definitely may be misguided, a "review" is a synopsis of what it is like to "dine there" while a "critique" may be more along the lines of "do they really know what they are doing"?

Although a "restaurant critic" may be able to write a "review", I wonder if a "restaurant reviewer" is capable of writing a "critic"?

I doubt that this distinction is particularly strong. As far as I'm concerned, the only reviewer who doesn't need to be a critic is someone who fills out those little forms for Zagat's and like that. Any other reviewer who isn't a critic in this sense is in the wrong line of work.

Pete, there may be a dictionary definition difference. But in the real world I'm too near-sighted to see any difference between the two.

>Your world is a nicer, happier place than the one I live in.<

Don't go betting the farm on that, Chris.

>I agree you dont have to be a chef to review, just a bit more knowlege of foods. <

The same could be said about many so-called professionals in the food service industry---including chefs.

The misinformation that is spouted by many of them, nowadays, in terms of not understanding the food they are working with and the techniques being used, is nothing short of incredible.

Just one example of many I could provide: Based on their verbal descriptions and how they refer to them, there's not a celebrity chef in the business who truly understands what heirloom vegetables are. Same applies to many (perhaps most?) non-celebrities.
"Organic" is just a word to many chefs. And there are an awful lot of food professionals who should be sent a quarter so the can buy a clue when it comes to understanding the differences between, say, range-fed and conventional chickens; grass-fed vs. feed lot beef; and farm-raised vs. wild-caught seafood.

Doesn't stop them from pontificating on these subjects, though, substituting buzzwords and half-vast googling for real knowledge.

But, unlike those who merely write about food, those people are professionals who work with food everyday. And therefore, they automatically know more about it. Yeah, right!

Doesn't stop them from pontificating on these subjects, though, substituting buzzwords and half-vast googling for real knowledge.

Same way I feel about some writers. I have many a recipe and cook books written by people who are alleged authorities,that ran a Tea Room in Brooklyn. Problem is a lot of the recipes dont work. Should I blame proofreaders??

Ed, the problems with cookbooks---especially chef-written cookbooks---are legion. Some can be laid at the feet of the publishing house, sure. But far too often there are other reasons, ranging from the fact the chef never made the dish on home-equipment, to the fact that the chef never proofread the recipes, to the fact that changing a recipe from restaurant amounts to home amounts is very often done mathematically, rather than by actually preparing the dish that way.

Even when the chef does make the dish at home, he or she is likely to have a home-kitchen filled with commercial (my son calls it "industrial") type equipment---which adds up to being the same as having made it in the restuarant. Not too many home cooks, after all, have a pair of 9-burner cooktops, and six ovens that never get turned off, and a salamander, and a stove vent that allows indoor grilling, and.....well, you get the point.

All of this adds up to a dish that may be fantastic when you order it in the restaurant, but which doesn't work when you try making it at home.

This is one of the reasons Cheftalk book reviewers are required to prepare at least two recipes from the book, and are encouraged to do more of them. Many a recipe reads well, but doesn't translate into the realities of home kitchens. Most of our reviewers, if a recipe doesn't work, will try another, and still another, in order to reach a fair conclusion as to the quality of the recipes. I've done as many as seven before deciding there was a real problem with that particular book.

On the other side of the equation, despite claims to the contrary, many cookbook publishers do not have test kitchens, and the recipes never are tried. Proofreading has become all but a thing of the past. Many publishers either do not have proofreaders on staff, or farm that task out to freelancers with no familiarity with the subject. Then the chef/author merely signs off on the final proof, without actually reading it (hey, they're busy with their real work, right?), and any mistakes made in typesetting show up in the final book.

To my mind, that last is the biggest problem of all. We got a note, once, from a chef author who was disappointed in our review---which had been rather on the negative side. She said to me, "if you're bothered by all those errors, just think how frustrated I feel...."

But the point is, she had a chance to correct them, and never did. Those errors (and there were many) didn't creep in between the final proofs and the printing. She just hadn't bothered reading those finals before signing off on them.

So, you can blame proofreaders if you want. But to my way of thinking, the author's name is on the product. If she/he doesn't care enough to assure that everything is as right as possible, then that's where any blame lies.

KY, you and I have discussed publishing before, but let me just briefly weigh in here.

I write academic books, published by university presses. I have also taught more than my fair share of freshman composition classes, which is a quick and extremely unpleasant way to learn the art of proofreading.

In times past, top academic presses insisted that every book have a line editor go through everything prior to producing galleys, the author had to respond to all line editing, the galleys were sent to the author for review, and then they went back to the regular editing staff for a last check. These days this simply cannot be done. A normal academic book from a top press probably sells 750 copies in the first two years, if it's in a mainstream sort of discipline, and if it ever sells more than 1500 that's fairly remarkable; in times past, you got an extra 500 copies at least just from library purchases. Printing costs, despite technology, have gone up and not down. And what this means is that an academic press runs very, very close to being in the red at all times.

The very first thing you do to cut costs is to insist on professionalism. That's free, it doesn't reduce quality except for people who are unprofessional, and it in no way lowers the press's standards. So what you do is, you send the book to a line editor, the author responds to edits, this produces galleys (these days usually PDF), and these are sent to the author for final review. Full stop. If the author cannot catch his or her own errors, in the original submitted manuscript, the line-edited version, and the galleys, where 99% of the time the error was present from the beginning, then that author isn't being professional about it. We even have an extra mechanism to twist the author's arm: the author produces the index, which means reading the whole darn MS word by word.

What happens is that authors seek subventions to farm out indexing, they blame the publishers for mistakes, and all in all there's this attitude that trivial things like spelling are beneath the concern of a serious scholar. (In case you're wondering, one reason I have managed to develop a positive relationship with a top academic press is that the line editor kind of has to struggle to find errors -- I've done so much proofreading and such that I catch mistakes very, very fast.)

With cookbooks, I think there is the problem that a lot of chefs see it as self-promotion rather than an achievement of its own. This is like scholars who see books as something you write in order to get promotion and fame, not to say anything worth saying or to produce knowledge. In both cases, these authors think proofreading of all kinds is somebody else's problem. I call it unprofessional behavior.

But with reviews, magazine articles, and so on, I really think we're talking about something else. There you simply cannot have any illusions that anybody is going to do deep content editing other than you, the author. You're very much on your own. If I had one thing to say above all else about the reviews here, it's that you've got the very unusual situation that everyone involved is very knowledgeable about the subject, which is emphatically not the case with any other kind of reviewing or criticism of food.

To boil it down radically: Ed's confusing the issue, granted, but you're falling for it.

>I have also taught more than my fair share of freshman composition classes, <

For which you have my deepest sympathies. :rolleyes:

Chris, in theory (and who was it said: in theory, theory and reality are the same; in reality they're not) there's only one real difference between how university & scienfitic presses, on one hand, and trade presses, on the other, work: the concept of peer review. It's just not done in regular publishing.

In the good old days, even run-of-the-mill consumer book publishers went through that same series of in-house and author editing. And, as you point out, it's very rare that an error creeps in between the original proofs and the final galleys. So the author has had ample opportunity to catch and correct them.

Thus, if they appear in the final work, it is certainly not the publisher's fault.

Sometimes the process results in turning the author off, and he/she doesn't edit it properly as a result. With my last book, for instance, the equivalent of a line editor was a freelancer whose only credientials were having a classics education. There wasn't a paragraph that didn't have comments asking for clarification or definitions of basic terms and conditions. Essentially, these notations reflected her unfamiliarity with the subject. Fortunately, instead of throwing up my hands in frustration I called my editor, who told me to ignore most of those comments. "You and I decide what goes in," she said, "so just make any real corrections, and don't worry about the rest."

But I could easily see somebody taking the attitude, "this is ridiculous. I'm not wading through all this crap." And, because of that, real errors go undetected.

As an aside: I am probably the second worst speller in the world. When I first went to work at McGraw Hill, I worried about that. My then boss, however, told me: "That's what we have copy editors for." One of the problems is that most publishers, nowdays, see copy editors as an unnecessary expense. Which, far as I'm concerned, just puts the burdon back on the author---where it belongs.

>To boil it down radically: Ed's confusing the issue,.......<

I don't think he's confusing the issue. It's a matter of basic assumptions. You know how many women in this country think they know all about sex, just because they're women? Ed is the same way about food arts. His basic assumption is that anyone who works in the food industry knows all about food, just because of their job. And any writer can't possibly compete with that knowledge and skill base. Notice, for instance, that in this latest of his "experiences" he is prepared to blame a proofreader rather than the authors. That's typical of how he reacts anytime a writer disagrees with any of his cherished opinions.

>If I had one thing to say above all else about the reviews here, it's that you've got the very unusual situation that everyone involved is very knowledgeable about the subject, <

Thank you for noticing. We've worked very hard to assemble that kind of staff. But the thing to keep in mind is that about half of them are not now, nor ever have been, professionals in the food industries. On the other hand, we also have some professionals who are not only knowlegeable specialists, they are recognized as tops in their respective fields.

Thats whats great about America, We all have and are entitled to our own opinions.

The ambiance of the restaurant is also one of the most important considerations. The surrounding is one of the factors that could whet the customers' appetite.

I think you should include the following: the decorations, the inside of the restaurant, the neighborhood it is in, the outside of the building, the foods taste, the drink selection, the food selection, the server's and their attitude, and the seating arrangements. All of these things are very important because they help you to decide if you should come back again.