Sietsema responds, sorta
Last week, we asked Tom for a clarification of the star-rating system. During his Dining Guide chat, he linked to his ratings code, which he posted this past Monday.
One of the chatters had the same questions we had, “Have you ever considered a different system for your ratings? So often you will write a review where you rave about the food but mention something else (service, appearance) that you didn’t like, and then the rating will be two and a half stars… What about separate food and service/ambiance ratings?”
Tom responded, “What’s wrong with two-and-a-half stars? In my book, that’s “good to excellent.”… The quality of the food accounts for about 50 percent of any restaurant rating; service and ambiance account for about 25 percent each.”
Fifty percent of the rating is essentially how much the restaurant kisses your ass and makes you feel fashionable or classy. So basically, The Washington Post food section ratings are pretty useless for anyone but rich blue-haired ladies, lobbyists and fashion hunters. Shouldn’t the food section be a little more concerned about… I don’t know… food?
Sietsema neglects the fact that there is still a significant portion of people in this town who don’t live it up on expense account meals, want to spend more judiciously, and who are more keen on the quality of food than scenery. The City Paper’s Tim Carman points out Sietsema’s detachment from the cheap eats crowd in this town, recounting his apparent inability to find more than one low-cost, high-quality food option in our fair city.
I would hold up the superior rating system from the Dallas Morning News as an example of what Tom should strive for. DMN will reward remarkable ventures with more stars, “If a barbecue shack serves ribs that make your whole body tingle, but the service is gruff and the decor little more than a shack, it still might merit three stars purely for the joy of that ‘cue.” So Tom, give up on some of the elitism, and deign to eat like us little people.
Photo courtesy of Diva Eva
