Comment by wallace_f | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wallace_f | Hacker News Reader

It is amazing to me that people care so much about what other people think; they want to be told what they should and should not like.

There is some truth that having more practice with fine dining aids in better distinguishing flavours and textures, but most of it has to do with practice in identifying what Other Important People Tell You are desirable qualities. For example, in identifying fine wine, the average, untrained population cannot, study after study has shown, discriminate. One study(1) even showed that perceived quality and neurological response could be manipulated by simply mislabelling bottle price, regardless of actual price.

Should you like or dislike food because of what someone else told you to think? Maybe being told what to think is a sign of inept judgement and a lack of resolve--a different interpretation of having a "sophisticated palate."

Besides, different qualities--textures being particularly notable--can be desirable in one culture and entirely undesirable in another.

My advice: Just enjoy what you like and explore whichever foods you so desire. Take time to really absorb the quality of the food, and try out reasonably priced family owned restaurants. Stop reading the NYT to tell you what to think.

Particularly ridiculous addendum: This critic ordered, in the review in question, gluten free noodles even though less than 1% of the world's population has Celiac disease. If I went to work and addressed the problem I was given by tailoring it to 1% of my clients, I would be fired for being an idiot. Probably you would, too.

1) https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/baba-shiv-how-wines-pr...

> It is amazing to me that people care so much about what other people think; they want to be told what they should and should not like.

This is an amazingly uncharitable read on the reason that food critics exist. How about this version? There are thousands upon thousands of restaurants in NYC. Constantly opening and closing. No human in the world has time to try them all, and going to one that sucks is a wasted opportunity. So having outside sources to turn you on to good places is really valuable. If you find a restaurant critic whose taste you agree with, taking his or her recommendations can drastically improve your ratio of good to bad meals.

It's no different than looking at reviews when going to a movie. If there are 15 movies playing, I'm a fool for reading reviews to help me decide what to watch? I suppose I should just try them all and then decide for myself what I like, rather than "being told what I should and should not like"?

>having outside sources to turn you on to good places is really valuable.

That's a reasonable reason to take advice on places to try, but does that justify the influence food critics have (which is the topic of the article)?

There's a host of review sites with a democratized review process--anyone can write a review, and reviews are accessible to everyone. For that reason and others, to me the answer is no.

>If you find a restaurant critic whose taste you agree with

You can also find reviewers whose tastes you agree with. Or friends, family, etc. There are even prolific reviewers, who may have reviewed more restaurants than you have time or desire to try.

Edit to say this: Perhaps there's some space in the market for food critics, but by and large I don't believe they should have the influence that is the discussion of this article. That is not to mention the host of other problems food critics bring to business.

Yelp reviews for ethnic food and fine dining are usually pretty poor in my opinion and also have similar issues as food critics. Also why would I care about the masses opinion on food? I'd rather read review from people who really care and know about food.

> If there are 15 movies playing, I'm a fool for reading reviews to help me decide what to watch?

If there are 15 movies playing, 12 of them will be remakes/reboots/rehashes/sequels, two of the others will be superhero movies, and the last one is an animated children's film. Stay home.

> There are thousands upon thousands of restaurants in NYC. Constantly opening and closing. No human in the world has time to try them all

If you restrict yourself to a particular area, a price range, a type of food, there are already many less options (even in NYC). You can also make a good opinion just by looking at the place from the outside. Personally, I much prefer to find some good place to eat by myself rather than go to the same place as everybody else just because it has a good review.

For movies, it's not different. You can tell from the genre, the director, the actors and so on if you may like this movie or not.

  > You can tell from the genre, the director, the actors and so on

New directors? Unfamiliar or upcoming actors? A desire to experiment and try a genre you're unfamiliar with?

  > You can also make a good opinion just by looking at the place from the outside.

Ehh, isn't this textbook "judging a book by its cover"? It tells you nothing about the quality of the food, service, etc. unless you waste a bunch of time scouting out the restaurant.

  > Personally, I much prefer to find some good place to eat by myself rather than 
  > go to the same place as everybody else just because it has a good review.

That's cool, and I don't think you're alone in that. Much of the time though, I don't want to experiment. It feels bad to waste money on a restaurant I don't like. It feels even worse to tell a place their food is so bad that I'd like a refund. There's no winning scenario for me in that instance.

Worse than just being a bad outing, it's an opportunity cost: I have $X and Y hours to spend eating out. Because I wasted an evening at Thai Noodle Place #3, I didn't get to eat at Ethiopian Restaurant #2 that's supposed to be incredible. Especially in NYC, it's not a given that said Ethiopian restaurant will be around next week.

Wasting money and/or time on an awful meal is much less likely if I'm going to a place with good reviews. Still possible, of course, but less likely.

  > For movies, it's not different. You can tell from the genre, the director, 
  > the actors and so on if you may like this movie or not.

Except in this instance you probably don't know the director, the actors, or even the synopsis. You're seeing the movie solely based on the genre, the title, and who else is in line for the movie. Not a strategy I would consistently recommend.

Lots of strategies for choosing from large sets. One friend tries dishes at a restaurant until she finds one she really likes, then sticks with that ever after.

I've read a better algorithm: look until you find an acceptable choice, then reject it and keep looking. When you find a better option, keep it. Works for shoes, cars, spouses etc. Might work for restaurants. The statistics say it should usually move you 1 std dev above where you would have been.

So it's better to artificially limit yourself to a particular area or particular type of food, forgoing opportunities to try something outside your established practice, and to limit yourself to particular genres and actors, again forging opportunities to try something new, than to rely on other peoples' opinions in deciding what to try?

If you end up enjoying it, why do you prefer having found it yourself over going to some place that's well known to be good?

Unless you've run out of new great places to try, I can't understand why the former is "better".

I'm not saying reviews are not useful or that I necessarily want to find places by myself. I just think reviews are sometimes overrated. People like to think that some restaurants are so much better than others, when in fact, many are of very comparable quality. For instance, I remember people queueing for 30 minutes at Shake shack because of the good reviews, when you could find comparable burgers everywhere.

In NYC, people go to restaurants all the time, it's part of the experience. If one restaurant isn't good, you'll go to an other one the next day.

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of the role of the food critic. None of them intend to manipulate anyone, nor do they have some special sense of discernment or sensitivity that goes beyond anyone else, nor is "liking" or "not liking" anything the central issue they're concerned with. And when you think about it further, opinion has little to do with their job.

What distinguishes a food critic from everyone else is their ability to WRITE about the food, wine, place, and experience. This means they describe the restaurant by comparing it to other experiences, putting it into a context. "Eating out" may very well just mean grabbing a bite to eat to some people at some times, but it ALSO can be a central cultural activity. It absolutely is worth writing and reading about.

"Breaking a restaurant", as dramatic as it sounds, doesn't happen with all reviews. Bad things can happen (because of reviews) when a restaurant tries to fake its way into being something which it is not, or when a formerly spectacular place starts "phoning-it-in" as far as service, food or innovation is concerned. Far more common, however, is that the reviewer will identify something really unique and thus create a buzz that causes a rush of business (as seen with "Dirt Candy" in NYC). Sometimes, its "sophisticated palate" sometimes its "simple pleasures".

A good reviewer will generally advise you to do exactly what you said "to explore, take time to absorb the qualities and try reasonably priced family-owned places." And if you want to read about it as well... that's their job.

Food critics in "food cities" still have a lot of influence (and I would count some blogs as worthy food criticism as well). Philly is a prime example with our well-respected critic, Craig Laban [http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/craig_laban/].

But far more than 1% of the restaurant's visitors would order the gluten free noodles - I'd ballpark 5-15%. And ordering an uncommon variation on a menu item gives the reviewer a chance to test whether the restaurant can deliver on rarely-ordered items.

In the interest of minimizing bad experiences, people have long turned to trusted curators and tastemakers to narrow down their decisions. We spend money and attention on these pursuits; of course some people are going to want a more informed decision. We have favorite DJs because they play great music in the right order; we peruse travel guides to focus our trips abroad; etc

> It is amazing to me that people care so much about what other people think; they want to be told what they should and should not like.

the sole reason fashion industry exists (I don't mean buying stuff that looks timelessly nice, quality is good etc. I mean stuff that was "in" 20 years ago, is 99% same and is hip now and will be "in" again in next 20 years with very minor modification).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com