Jump to content

The Bruni Thread


Guest Aaron T

Recommended Posts

Also, it doesn't even matter. If the Times puts forth the star ratings on its website as something its presenting to consumers for them to rely on, it doesn't matter whether the consumers actually take the bait. As a responsible journalistic entity, the Times has a duty to either keep the information current or abstain.

 

See? Exactly the same argument from Sneakeater. Equally relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Also, it doesn't even matter. If the Times puts forth the star ratings on its website as something its presenting to consumers for them to rely on, it doesn't matter whether the consumers actually take the bait. As a responsible journalistic entity, the Times has a duty to either keep the information current or abstain.

 

See? Exactly the same argument from Sneakeater. Equally relevant.

 

I don't have the foggiest clue why you folks think this is relevant TO THIS DISCUSSION

Link to post
Share on other sites
no, it's utterly irrelevant to THIS DISCUSSION.

 

You can only think it's irrelevant if you are somehow misunderstanding it. Sneakeater is making exactly the same point in his own words. The Times' obligation to ensure that whatever information it offers on its web-site is accurate is not a function of the volume of traffic it gets.

 

 

that's a. true; and b. utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

 

the paucity of traffic is why there's no pressure on the Times to fix it.

 

I must be losing my touch. You keep excusing its inadequacy by asserting low traffic. I opine that that is not and should not be determinative of the information's quality. That's my relevant point.

 

You now raise the completely irrelevant question of why Pete Wells isn't losing sleep over it. I grant that. It doesn't matter.

 

 

huh? I excuse nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And what you were anachronistically failing to do is consider whether they were ambitious at the time they were reviewed.

Your "ambitious at the time of the review" formulation seems to me incorrect.

 

Let me rewind a bit: this started out as a discussion of the types of restaurants suitable for full reviews, and which are suitable for the "$25-and-under" reviews (or something of that ilk).

 

In any era, Café des Artistes would have been a "Restaurants" review. Let us suppose that it was never any more ambitious than it is today. Nevertheless, it would not have been relegated to a "Casual Dining" section. It would always have been a full "starred review" candidate.

 

But we are in complete harmony. Cafe des Artistes may have been the most woefully unambitious restaurant in the world when it opened in 1917. It might still have been unambitious whenever the Times first reviewed it (decades ago, but I don't know when). But that's the relevant information when one considers whether it deserved a review - not the state of the restaurant today.

 

 

 

we're talking about today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the paucity of traffic is why there's no pressure on the Times to fix it.

In the first place, I agree with Wilfrid and Sneakeater that the Times has a duty of care to publish accurate information, whether traffic is high or low.

 

Besides that, you're treating the "paucity of traffic" as a demonstrated fact, with no evidence of that whatsoever. In fact, I believe you stated upthread that this was just a "feeling" you had, with no data behind it at all.

 

We're long past the Web 1.0 days, when people made huge investments in websites because of the mere hypothetical possibility of traffic. The Times website is a very expensive undertaking. They sell adds based on traffic. Unless they are complete idiots, the information they choose to showcase, and the manner in which they do so, is indicative of popularity.

 

As I suggested umpteen dozen pages ago, the "above-the-fold" placement of the restaurant search facility is a pretty good indication of high traffic. If this wasn't the case, the Times would allocate that valuable space in some other way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the paucity of traffic is why there's no pressure on the Times to fix it.

In the first place, I agree with Wilfrid and Sneakeater that the Times has a duty of care to publish accurate information, whether traffic is high or low.

 

Besides that, you're treating the "paucity of traffic" as a demonstrated fact, with no evidence of that whatsoever. In fact, I believe you stated upthread that this was just a "feeling" you had, with no data behind it at all.

 

We're long past the Web 1.0 days, when people made huge investments in websites because of the mere hypothetical possibility of traffic. The Times website is a very expensive undertaking. They sell adds based on traffic. Unless they are complete idiots, the information they choose to showcase, and the manner in which they do so, is indicative of popularity.

 

As I suggested upteen dozen pages ago, the "above-the-fold" placement of the restaurant search facility is a pretty good indication of high traffic. If this wasn't the case, the Times would allocate that valuable space in some other way.

 

1. someone did find the number of page views up the thread. it was insignificant (especially considering that the majority are probably outside NY).

 

2. nowhere did I dispute that the website should be correct. nowhere. in fact I said the opposite. I said that it was "irrelevant to THIS DISCUSSION"...not that it didn't matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And what you were anachronistically failing to do is consider whether they were ambitious at the time they were reviewed.

Your "ambitious at the time of the review" formulation seems to me incorrect.

 

Let me rewind a bit: this started out as a discussion of the types of restaurants suitable for full reviews, and which are suitable for the "$25-and-under" reviews (or something of that ilk).

 

In any era, Café des Artistes would have been a "Restaurants" review. Let us suppose that it was never any more ambitious than it is today. Nevertheless, it would not have been relegated to a "Casual Dining" section. It would always have been a full "starred review" candidate.

 

But we are in complete harmony. Cafe des Artistes may have been the most woefully unambitious restaurant in the world when it opened in 1917. It might still have been unambitious whenever the Times first reviewed it (decades ago, but I don't know when). But that's the relevant information when one considers whether it deserved a review - not the state of the restaurant today.

 

 

 

we're talking about today.

That's why it was inappropriate for you to offer Cafe des Artistes and La Grenouille as examples of restaurants which are part of the review system yet unambitious. You must look at whether they were ambitious when they were first reviewed (if they weren't, then you have a point - but that's the issue).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I must be losing my touch. You keep excusing its inadequacy by asserting low traffic. I opine that that is not and should not be determinative of the information's quality. That's my relevant point.

 

You now raise the completely irrelevant question of why Pete Wells isn't losing sleep over it. I grant that. It doesn't matter.

 

 

huh? I excuse nothing.

 

Then this post must bear some occult meaning:

 

Also, it doesn't even matter. If the Times puts forth the star ratings on its website as something its presenting to consumers for them to rely on, it doesn't matter whether the consumers actually take the bait. As a responsible journalistic entity, the Times has a duty to either keep the information current or abstain.

 

See? Exactly the same argument from Sneakeater. Equally relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I must be losing my touch. You keep excusing its inadequacy by asserting low traffic. I opine that that is not and should not be determinative of the information's quality. That's my relevant point.

 

You now raise the completely irrelevant question of why Pete Wells isn't losing sleep over it. I grant that. It doesn't matter.

 

 

huh? I excuse nothing.

 

Then this post must bear some occult meaning:

 

outside of a few obsessed foodies, I don't think anyone cares about that.

 

I mean, we definitely put far more thought into how the system works and whether it's consistent then the Times ever has. we CARE far more.

 

rereviews are primarily a matter of a reviewer's whim. have those four-star Chinese reviews ever been rescinded (I think the restaurants have closed)? has the one-star for McDonald's ever been taken away? etc. etc.

 

a restaurant is not automatically entitled to a rereview. we sit here puzzling out supposed patterns and implicit policies.....I think we're just reading entrails.

 

A restaurant isn't "entitled" to a rereview.

 

The consuming public, who rely on Times star ratings, are "entitled" to the re-review.

 

If JoJo isn't still a three-star restaurant, the public that consults the Times website for star ratings deserves to know that.

 

as was demonstrated before, the number of people perusing the Times food section on the web is insignificant.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
And what you were anachronistically failing to do is consider whether they were ambitious at the time they were reviewed.

Your "ambitious at the time of the review" formulation seems to me incorrect.

 

Let me rewind a bit: this started out as a discussion of the types of restaurants suitable for full reviews, and which are suitable for the "$25-and-under" reviews (or something of that ilk).

 

In any era, Café des Artistes would have been a "Restaurants" review. Let us suppose that it was never any more ambitious than it is today. Nevertheless, it would not have been relegated to a "Casual Dining" section. It would always have been a full "starred review" candidate.

 

But we are in complete harmony. Cafe des Artistes may have been the most woefully unambitious restaurant in the world when it opened in 1917. It might still have been unambitious whenever the Times first reviewed it (decades ago, but I don't know when). But that's the relevant information when one considers whether it deserved a review - not the state of the restaurant today.

 

 

 

we're talking about today.

That's why it was inappropriate for you to offer Cafe des Artistes and La Grenouille as examples of restaurants which are part of the review system yet unambitious. You must look at whether they were ambitious when they were first reviewed (if they weren't, then you have a point - but that's the issue).

 

oh...you misunderstand me. no no no!!!!

 

Aaron T. was proposing a hypothetical review system. not saying it actually was in place. I was saying that it wouldn't work because you'd have to eschew reviewing places like Cafe des Artistes or Grenouille today. no one was talking about the actual NY Times review system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I must be losing my touch. You keep excusing its inadequacy by asserting low traffic. I opine that that is not and should not be determinative of the information's quality. That's my relevant point.

 

You now raise the completely irrelevant question of why Pete Wells isn't losing sleep over it. I grant that. It doesn't matter.

 

 

huh? I excuse nothing.

 

Then this post must bear some occult meaning:

 

Also, it doesn't even matter. If the Times puts forth the star ratings on its website as something its presenting to consumers for them to rely on, it doesn't matter whether the consumers actually take the bait. As a responsible journalistic entity, the Times has a duty to either keep the information current or abstain.

 

See? Exactly the same argument from Sneakeater. Equally relevant.

 

 

huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

and this has what to do with Dining & Wine?

 

(other than proving that online readers of the NY Times outnumber print readers 10-1...and it stands to reason that most of them aren't in NY (at least 136 million to be exact) and therefore aren't likely to be looking up NY restaurants)

 

Blackadder: "Let's try again. If I have two beans and then I add two more beans, what does that make?"

Baldrick: "Umm... a very small casserole?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...