3 ms·

Disappointingly, the article doesn't really explain the authority part, just how they came to review restaurants.

• anigbrowl 11y ago
  Presumably people largely agreed with the tastes of the reviewers.
  • pascalmahe 11y ago
    Can't it be a simple case of being the first so widely distributed ? A quick skimming on Wikipedia shows that of the main guides showed today [1], only one other guide started at the end of the of the 19th century [2]. So probably a good example of the "Land Grab" strategy (from Spolsky, [3]), being the first to grow fast in a new(ish) market. Then they were the reference and that's a easier position to maintain than to grab. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restaurant_rating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restaurant_rating [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Cuisini%C3%A8re_Cordon_Bleu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Cuisini%C3%A8re_Cordon_Bleu [3]: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000056.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000056.html
  • cooper12 11y ago
    I don't really buy that because its possible that the guide causes people to have high expectations and when they don't have a good experience they might blame circumstance or their own taste rather than the restaurant because the authoritative book couldn't be wrong could it? I was also reading in another article posted in the comments about how receiving a star can be life-changing to restaurants and it forces them to maintain the same level of quality, so the award causes positive feedback.