What To Keep In Mind When Reading Reviews For Restaurants

Some of the earliest uses of the phrase "everyone's a critic" date back to a time when that was considerably less possible than it is today. We speak, of course, of the halcyon pre-internet days, when even the biggest complainer's reach didn't stretch much longer than a curly telephone cord. But now, in our irreversible internet age, everybody has a place to rage. That's why the once basic concept of a "restaurant review" can mean a few different things today, depending on who you ask.

Media-wide, whether it's of the social or legacy variety, there are some obvious signs that a review you're reading was not primarily intended to inform. Anything overly personal, unspecific, or transparently influenced is going to be hard to swallow. Take that user-generated content, please. Amateur internet review platforms are abundant with all manner of patter. That copy is unedited, unverified, and capriciously moderated. So it's important to take it with a bigger grain of salt than the hypothetical user HiddenGemNomNomFoodie used to ruin what was already a perfect seared steak.

A lot of amateur reviews peddle perceived slights rather than actionable intelligence. Whether or not a restaurant provided birthday candles for HiddenGemNomNomFoodie's technically disallowed outside cake will not inform your visit there, unless you are also three babies in a trench coat. The same is true of anything weirdly unspecific or irrelevant, which may suggest ulterior motives. And overly effusive or suspiciously familiar details are as likely to have come from the owner's mom as a paying guest. Amateur reviews can be helpful for providing unaltered photos, however.

Professional criticism can have its pitfalls, too. Sometimes even the same ones inflicted by the aspirants! A paycheck and a title aren't enough to keep some writers from stumbling down the path to imagined insults either. In general, if a published restaurant review harps on some service quirk or, worse, remarks on the tone of an individual staffer, that isn't only irresponsible journalism, it's a disservice to the reader. If the person behind the byline had one tense interaction with a beleaguered server on a busy night, it just doesn't bear repeating when there are so many more consistent qualities — the food, the drinks, the ambiance — worth recounting, and considering when choosing a place to eat.

Outside influence whispers with its dragon breath in formal food writing, too. This does not mean that your favorite local blog or alt weekly is literally exchanging cash to claim that clearly bad restaurants are good — an implausible rumor some online commenters cling to. More likely, it'll creep in via some "friendly" public relations connection, hopes for future favors (easier reservations being a standard unspoken trade), or boundary-crashing personal link. Until such malfeasance is revealed, you aren't going to get any kind of back-of-house glimpse. 

There are some things you can do to make sure you're reading the highest-quality review possible, though. Try to identify periodicals with clearly outlined ethics policies. Then, stick to those demonstrating a clear commitment (and this authority) to criticism. And find a writer you like. As with food, sometimes there's just no accounting for taste.