On the Montmartre thread, @joethefoodie wrote, in reply to a review Wilfrid posted:
Just explain to me, and I'm not on Stulman's payroll (Or Ho's for that matter) why you're willing to "review" a place after you've tried 4 dishes?
He later added:
...most of the time I won't blog about a place, much less "review" it, unless I've tried a good 8 or more dishes from the menu. I may write something here, or on some orher food board, but I don't view that as a review either.
Isn't that the problem ALL blogs have?. . . . I should have put "problem" in quotes. Or said, to the extent it's a problem.
But it should always be emphasized -- as Oakapple does -- that these are usually on-off impressions, for what they're worth.
Wilfrid, in his defense, observed:
It is interesting to think about. If one starts with the Times model, then one can regard less rigorous approaches as problematic. But should one start with the Times model? If one did, wouldn't the effect be drastically to reduce the total amount of information available?
And to wrap up, here is Lex's summary:
I'm puzzled. How is this review different from 90% of what you post in the Pink Pig? You usually go to a new place once, occasionally twice, and then write about it. That's pretty standard for bloggers. In fact plenty of mainstream reviewers do that too. To my knowledge it's only the Times that requires a minimum of 3 visits.