Re: Calling Bill Addison
OK, Dishoholics, let’s get busy. I’ve gotten a bunch of e-mails calling Bill Addison a “chicken” for not defending himself yesterday. Here’s the deal—according to a couple of my pals at DMN, Belo has a rule that “prohibits’ staff writers from engaging in making public statements about their policies. So, I can’t fault Freckle Face for not showing his. As many of you have pointed out, FF did outline his guidelines the minute he hit print. But, color me stupid, I’m still confused. That said, I offer the Dallas Morning News a suggestion for how to make the star system more user friendly. It’s simple; it’s my idea. If anybody uses it, they will owe me lots of money. Ready?
Pick three colors and assign a price range to that color. Pink (cost of a meal less than $10), Green ($10-$20), Purple ($20 plus). Or, whatever. Then assign stars according to price/color. That enables one to have a five-star breakfast at Mecca or a five-star piece of pizza pie at Grimaldi’s. It also allows one to have a four-star dinner at, pick one, Sevy’s without having to weigh the Sevy’s experience against the Grimaldi’s. Dig what I’m shooting at ‘cha? How easy would that be? And how pretty if you pick the right colors. Discuss.
10 Comments to “Re: Calling Bill Addison”
Leave a Reply
All material copyright © 2008 D Magazine. All rights reserved.
Makes sense, but…
Do you really think that Belo is going to spend extra money to print colored stars in the Guide every Friday?!
And as to their “stars are on a bell curve” canard, I leave you with this. Bell curve grading is a hallmark of educational grading and population distribution, whereby not everyone can be in the top 10%, bottom 10%, etc. Somebody (most people) are distributed withing the middle of those extremes. These are distributed AFTER a complete sample is taken. Not before. An exam is written, 80% of the people get 75%, so they all fall in the middle and the rest are in the top and bottom ends. Simple.
So, does this mean that the Bill Addisons, et al, go back after an eat-out and pull out their PCs with their bell curve distribution of all reviews over the past XX years and then decide where this week’s should (accidentally) fall into place?
Hardly… and that’s why it’s a completely specious reason for why they do what they do.
There absolutely needs to be a breakdown based on price. I really like this idea.
Well then if not color then icons. stars, stripes, happy faces–a knife, a fork, a spoon.
Just use 3 different font sizes for a $ sign instead of color. We’re simple folk out here. I like the idea to categorize by cost. Would it be possible in your system to get a 5 star meal for less than $10? How many stars get appointed due to “atmosphere” or exclusiveness. Maybe you could add a snob factor…in neckties or designer purses or something. I’m sure folks would be willing to pay extra so as not to have to dine near the likes of myself or the casual classes.
Nancy, your idea makes far too much sense…so it won’t work. But, brilliant nonetheless.
Hmmmm…. let’s make this a bit mire complicated but a lot more fun… First, I love Nancy’s idea of three colors denoting overall price. Next, cut the stars to three (one star - avoid the place like the plague, two stars - go if the boss is buying, three stars - get there soon and often). As for service, three small icons of a waiter delivering food (good), a waiter looking the other way as a diner attempts to get some attention (average), finally a waiter sneezing into the food. To cap it all off let’s incorporate Don’s idea of using designer purses to denote snob factor (Gucci, fake Gucci and …. well don’t just sit there reading this, give us a suggestion).
I like the fact that Bill has done away with 1/2 stars in the Guidelive ratings.
However, I think that he’s going overboard with 3-star ratings. I emailed him about 1 year ago to encourage him to be less liberal witht the 3’s and use no stars, 1’s, and 2’s more liberally. Here are the suggestions that I gave him:
0 Stars — Horrible dining experience; nothing redeeming about food, atmosphere, etc. (I know that it’s difficult, but this is a tool which must be used to maintain credibility with readers.)
1 Star — Subpar food … comparable to a large, multi-unit chain restaurant
2 Stars — Good, average food. Nothing special but it is a reliable, every-night sort of place.
3 Stars — Generally a good restaurant with solid execution across its menu and a few notable items. Lacks distinctive flair required to be 4-star but a few well-crafted dishes put it above 2-stars.
4 Stars — A special dining experience. These restaurants serve food that is well-prepared and distinctive. Category does not exclude locally significant restaurants with lower price points (eg. Mia’s, etc.) that define a genre.
5 Stars — Among the finest dining experiences in the nation with no misses on the menu and service that consistently defies expectation.
I’m surprised no one has brought up the effect of sampling on this issue. The star system would be more useful if we actually knew what rated a 1 or 2 star. Mr. Addison, and I would say food critics in general, are not going to review the restaurants that are likely 1 star candidates, and will review only a few of the likely two stars (I doubt Mr. Addison would admit to ever having eaten at a zero star restaurant). Also, the DMN and every publication wants to print widely interesting reviews…the 1 to 2 star burger joint down the street isn’t going to draw people from Plano to Duncanville, so what’s the point of publishing a review? The restaurants reviewed, from a business perspective, pretty much have to skew toward the high end to interest people throughout the area. The preponderance of threes awarded seems much more to do with the fact that these are the types of restaurants reviewed vs. the bell curve.
This problem aside, I can get very little useful information from the star system given the wide variety of restaurants that have been awarded a three. I do like the idea of star ranking within a price range…now THAT would be helpful info!
Good luck getting a DMN critic to consider a suggestion. I once suggested to Dotty Griffith it would be nice to know what the noise levels were of new restaurants and you would have thought I asked her to cut her own heart out from her caustic responses. She insisted it would be impossible even though I pointed her to a San Francisco newspaper that pulled it off quite easily with a decibel meter (which she deemed too expensive and excessive work on her part). Before dropping big bucks, I want to know if I’m going to be able to hear my dinner companions or not (and might select the people accordingly). The paper I referred her to used this scale/sybols for sound:
ONE BELL = Pleasantly quiet (less than 65 decibels); TWO BELLS = Can talk easily (65-70); THREE BELLS = Talking normally gets difficult (70-75); FOUR BELLS = Can talk only in raised voices (75-80); BOMB = Too noisy for normal conversation (80+)
Nancy - It seems obvious to me or am I missing something? Why doesn’t D magazine lead the way with your system? Is this too many questions?