Ratings and Reviews
We have been debating how best to handle restaurant ratings on All In for a long time. We nearly launched a rather complex and novel system in late ‘05 [edit] that addressed the issue of directly comparing very different experiences [/edit], but I never quite came to terms with some of the specifics. Becks & Posh’s new system inspired me to pick up the project again. We’ve finally agreed that adoping a simple and familiar rating notation makes sense. And, as an individual reviewer, it may be better to paint in broad strokes.
We will be using a 5 star rating system on All In, as follows:
The best
Excellent
Very good
Good
Passable
Bad
[edit] These terms are intentionally generic. A rating should reflect some intersection of the quality of ingredients and preparation, presentation, service, ambiance, value, expectations, and more (though not all of those factors are always relevant). There are absolutely things that are better about the best multi-course meal than street food or casual fare. If that weren’t true, why pay many times the price? That makes it hard to compare individual attributes. However, all types of food and restaurants can induce wonderful feelings, pleasant surprise, and even awe. (You may notice that not everything in our Best Foods list comes from a fancy restaurant.) Rather than trying to ignore the inherently subjective nature of judging the way the elements of a meal come together, we have decided instead to embrace our feelings about how everything comes together as a whole and capture them in words and, for brevity and clarity, stars. Clarity, you ask? Sometimes details can obsure the big picture — look to the stars for a summation.
You may also notice that there are no degrees of bad in this scale. I don’t often write about places that are bad, unless they are truly awful, in which case I don’t want to give them any stars at all. It seems a bit cruel to call out by just how much a place doesn’t make the grade. (In school, there is no F-.) As such, you will see 0 stars for a place that we would never recommend and we’ll leave it at that. [/edit]
Since I sometimes like to share initial impressions of a place without the authority of multiple visits and there are places that I love that don’t necessarily have outstanding food, you’ll also see one of the following symbols for the number of times one or both of us have eaten at a restaurant:
As part of this process, I’ve revamped the restaurant reviews index as the new All In :: Restaurant Guide, which includes ratings for several restaurants we haven’t actually gotten around to reviewing here. Our list of Restaurants to Try has also gotten too long as we’ve crossed many off over time, so spots we’ve tried will be moved over to the Restaurant Guide. There are many ratings and reviews to add, so check back for updates over the next few days. [edit] Ratings may also change with additional visits - additional experiences and dates will be noted. [/edit]
We’re still considering adding some additional details and want to make the ratings, reviews, and lists and useful as possible. Thoughts and suggestions welcome!
sam said,
July 16, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
that’s not fair - you added an extra number. I was so close to doing a 3 and 4+ too but decided to keep it simple
I even considered a 10+ and might still add it.
I was thinking about what you said in the comment on my post. I have been considering dating the last visit to partially give a clue to your question about the places that dont have a x or a heart. But I dont know, I’ll see how I go with this for starters, i think it gives a good pointer and then the review itself should fill in the gaps
Silverbrow said,
July 17, 2006 @ 1:48 am
Interesting that you’ve decided to start this. I recently ditched my ratings as I found it hard to achieve a truly fair system.
I’d be interested to understand what your criteria are for achieving the various ratings.
I felt it was misleading to give truly outstanding high-end restaurants the same rankings as informal places that served great food that I thoroughly enjoyed. On their day, they might be perfect for what I was after, but I felt it wasn’t helping my readers to compare them directly. Therefore, I ditched my rating system and hopefully my writing speaks for itself - as it were.
I hope your system works better for you and if it does, you might inspire me to have another go.
Olivia said,
July 17, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
Sam, I like your 10+ idea as well! I broke out 3 because it seems like it’s often at 2 or 3 that I’ve made up my mind about a place - not always favorably. If I go 4 or more times though, that really means something.
Silverbrow, your point is one I actually struggled with for a long time before deciding on this system. The more complex iteration I mentioned actually addressed the direct comparison of very different types of meals by using a 10 point scale, but assigning a maximum possible for a given restaurant. For example, the best imaginable tacqueria might top out at only 7 out of 10, with any tacquerias then rated essentially out of 7. The problems with this system though included how to decide what the maximum should be, and whether it should be by category, or price, or…? In the end it just seemed too complex and in some ways even more subjective in its specificity than the broad strokes of 1 to 5 stars.
To your question though, I’ve edited the post to add more insight on why those definitions of stars and the purpose I hope they will serve.
Thanks!
Olivia
Teich.Net :: All In » Pizzeria Picco said,
August 6, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
[...] Explanation of ratings [...]
Teich.Net :: All In » Palo Alto Needs the Kitchen said,
August 13, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
[...] Explanation of ratings [...]
Teich.Net :: All In » Secret Beef in LA said,
March 20, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
[...] Explanation of ratings [...]