Your review is not helpful

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce Bilmes & Sue Boyle

Cecif, use the "not helpful" button if you like. It's OK.

LOL! Thanks Bruce.

Sorry if I was unclear on the photo thing. I see full captions with the photos along the right, if I click on the photo I get a huge version with a caption (same one) and under it a list (labels?) of all the other available pics for the place.

Chris, am I missing something? How do you know if a review hasn't been updated for a while? As far as I can see (and there was discussion on this elsewhere), the review dates were removed a while back... which still bums me out.

I agree, it's good to visit and update, though they can't post all the updates of course... as Bruce said I think they get an overwhelming amount of extra user reviews to post.

Ceci, are you calling me out? Okay, lemme do some digging...how about one of my newfound faves, Dottie's Diner in Woodbury, CT? Michael only discusses the chicken pie, donut bread pudding, and of course the donuts. I've been there, and they have an extensive menu...but I ended up only wanting those three items. It was a heavenly trio, believe me...

Harry's of Colchester, CT: Michael discusses the burgers and dogs and mentions the fried clams -- though there's a photo of a fairly large menu tacked to the side of the shack. BBQ King of Charlotte, NC: he ate a perch and a pork sandwich, though they also have burgers, dogs, etc. Even Red's Eats of Wiscasset, ME: he only endorses the lobster roll, despite other menu items that receive an obligatory mention.

Now hang on, don't go thinking that there's anything wrong with that...for I certainly wouldn't get anything else from Red's Eats other than a lobster roll, or cheeseburgers from Harry's, or pork sandwiches from BBQ King. But sometimes Michael does only focus on a few items, and rightfully so, because that's what draws me to those spots in the first place.

I wouldn't try posting a review for one item, either, unless that one item was the only thing that the place was known for (like stands that only serve hot dogs, et al.). I admit that in my review of The Summit in Ojai, CA, we only had a burger, fries, and a shake, but I wrote the review because it was truly a RF place in a part of the state that didn't have many RF places already covered. That's a criterion in the back of my mind, too, when deciding on the validity of a review.

Yeah, cecif, that list under the huge photo is where the labels appear. As far as I can tell, the only time you can see those labels is if you click on a photo for the large version. Thing is, when people write reviews (us included) those labels and captions appear together, so it makes sense to maybe say what the food is in the label, and then say something else in the caption. But when the review is posted, most people don't see the label. It can be confusing.

LOL Chris! In my head I added a caveat about a place that was known for one thing, and I had Red's Eats in mind, and somehow the thought did not reach my fingers! (Must be the injury... )

I agree though, sometimes it is warranted, absolutely. And kudos for the examples!

quote:

Originally posted by cecif

Chris, am I missing something? How do you know if a review hasn't been updated for a while? As far as I can see (and there was discussion on this elsewhere), the review dates were removed a while back... which still bums me out.

I agree, it's good to visit and update, though they can't post all the updates of course... as Bruce said I think they get an overwhelming amount of extra user reviews to post.

You're not missing anything, Ceci: I'm mainly looking at the Logbook dates. Then I can figure out which should be updated with a visit...

quote:

Originally posted by ayersian
Even Red's Eats of Wiscasset, ME: he only endorses the lobster roll, despite other menu items that receive an obligatory mention.

Now hang on, don't go thinking that there's anything wrong with that...for I certainly wouldn't get anything else from Red's Eats other than a lobster roll,

I year or two back we stopped at Red's when heading further north, and my daughter (6 at the time) didn't want lobster. She got a cheeseburger and it was really good...but good enough to pass on the lobster? Maybe if I lived around the corner...but not on a once a year or less trip through!

A few years ago, Emeril Lagasse happened to say that he thought the cheeseburger at Melvin's in Charleston (a terrific barbecue place) was one of the best in the country, so of course they hammer that hard in their ads and signage, and I'm pretty sure they get a decent amount of traffic just from people looking for the cheeseburger. And I've had it and it's good but I don't know why you'd order it there unless you've had like three barbecue meals in a row.

I've never negatively rated a review for the very reasons the original poster "Southern Fried" gave.

Better to just skip a rating when not impressed.

However, other than the Sterns, who must cover an entire country, I dislike when people review after just one visit--one meal. Sometimes they don't even order more than one item.

That's not fair either to the restaurant or to Roadfood readers.

quote:

Originally posted by Voyageur

I've never negatively rated a review for the very reasons the original poster "Southern Fried" gave.

Better to just skip a rating when not impressed.

However, other than the Sterns, who must cover an entire country, I dislike when people review after just one visit--one meal. Sometimes they don't even order more than one item.

That's not fair either to the restaurant or to Roadfood readers.

If people think that it is somehow "not nice" to click on the button that says the review isn't helpful, even when - as above - you might not think it is helpful, then WHY is no one suggesting that feature be removed from the site???

If the site owners did not want to know whether we find the reviews useful or not, they wouldn't ask, IMHO.

Also, Voyageur, I totally agree with your last comment.

quote:

Originally posted by cecif

quote:

Originally posted by Voyageur

I've never negatively rated a review for the very reasons the original poster "Southern Fried" gave.

Better to just skip a rating when not impressed.

However, other than the Sterns, who must cover an entire country, I dislike when people review after just one visit--one meal. Sometimes they don't even order more than one item.

That's not fair either to the restaurant or to Roadfood readers.

If people think that it is somehow "not nice" to click on the button that says the review isn't helpful, even when - as above - you might not think it is helpful, then WHY is no one suggesting that feature be removed from the site???

If the site owners did not want to know whether we find the reviews useful or not, they wouldn't ask, IMHO.

Also, Voyageur, I totally agree with your last comment.

Yes, but several people will click "review is not helpful" no matter how informative the review is if they have an axe to grind against the reviewer or if they don't agree that the restaurant or type of cuisine being reviewed falls into "their" definition of roadfood.

WJ, I would agree that giving a not helpful review for those reasons is not right and the people who do so need a life, but some reviews really aren't that good (a small minority) and it is a useful tool for those. I assume it is a useful tool to the site owners when deciding what reviews to put in. I only have the fact that I find most of the reviews useful as evidence that they are paying attention to those people mark not helpful.

quote:

Originally posted by wanderingjew


Yes, but several people will click "review is not helpful" no matter how informative the review is if they have an axe to grind against the reviewer or if they don't agree that the restaurant or type of cuisine being reviewed falls into "their" definition of roadfood.

So, WJ, if that's true (I'm not saying yes or no), are you suggesting that the site owners remove the feature so that doesn't happen??

Because, if the negativity is inevitable (per your post) and on top of that people are going to complain about those who click "not helpful" (even when as many have demonstrated it can be true!)... why is no one asking that the feature be taken off??

I'm still curious.

quote:

Originally posted by cecif

quote:

Originally posted by wanderingjew


Yes, but several people will click "review is not helpful" no matter how informative the review is if they have an axe to grind against the reviewer or if they don't agree that the restaurant or type of cuisine being reviewed falls into "their" definition of roadfood.

So, WJ, if that's true (I'm not saying yes or no), are you suggesting that the site owners remove the feature so that doesn't happen??

Because, if the negativity is inevitable (per your post) and on top of that people are going to complain about those who click "not helpful" (even when as many have demonstrated it can be true!)... why is no one asking that the feature be taken off??

I'm still curious.

It doesn't really make a difference to me whether or not this function is removed, however I just wanted to indicate that there are many reasons why some would choose to give an inaccurate response.

The review on the homepage today for Frank & Burgy's is an example of my rational.

In his review, NYCJeff claims to be a huge Roadfood fan, yet there is not one post from him on these boards, and he became a member the day the review was created. And I apologize for my cynicism if I'm incorrect, but after 25 years in marketing; the review smacks of advertising copy, the photos a little too perfect.

Like I said, if I'm wrong, I apologize and I'll change my "Vote" to "helpful." But until then I have no idea if this is a sincere passionate paen to a burger joint, or just a blurb from the owner or a friend.

Part of our job as editors of the site is to do a little legwork to make sure we don't post "advertising copy." We may have missed on rare occasion but, for the most part, I think we've managed to ensure that just about every review posted by Roadfood.com readers is legit.

And let me address the issue of writing a review soon after becoming a member: you don't have to be a member to use this website, but you do to post a review. So it would be only natural for someone who only used Roadfood as a resource to register just so they could post a review. Nothing unusual about that.