5 ms·
Google maps has definitely improved, but they are even worse than most review sites in the near worthlessness of their review scores. The vast majority of resta
by ac29 7y ago
Google maps has definitely improved, but they are even worse than most review sites in the near worthlessness of their review scores. The vast majority of restaurants are rated between 4 and 5 stars, with the difference between a 4.1 and 4.6 being huge - the former being 50/50 that its good, the latter being the sort of place worth waiting in line for. The closest Michelin starred restaurant to me is rated 0.2 points higher than the forgettable greek restaurant across the parking lot from where I work, and less than 1 point better than taco bell.
- tyre 7y agoI will not tolerate taco bell slander on this web forum
- CamelCaseName 7y agoWell sure, because a rating doesn't measure how good a restaurant is compared to all other restaurants. Ratings measure how good a restaurant is compared to other restaurants in the same class because that is where their patrons' reference frame comes from. It's also unfair to rate both a $1 coffee and a $8 coffee on the same basis, it's clear that the cost constraints put pressure on how good you can make that coffee. It's not unfair for an $8 coffee to be higher quality, but worse rated than a $1 coffee. I rely and rate on Google Maps excessively, using it to plan trips and to eat out. It has consistently been the best source of information. All you have to do is first filter for the type / class of cuisine you want.
- dboreham 7y ago>Ratings measure how good a restaurant is compared to other restaurants in the same class because that is where their patrons' reference frame comes from. See above, but I find the opposite to be often true. I see reviews for restaurants I am very familiar with, that I know to be excellent and basically the best option for innovative cuisine in a 100 mile radius, which say "Way overpriced small portions". Pretty clear that whoever wrote that review was operating outside their preferred restaurant class.
- JaRail 7y agoExactly. If you look at the rating for a McDonald's, the rating is "how clean is the bathroom and does the ice cream machine work?"
- dragonwriter 7y ago> Ratings measure how good a restaurant is compared to other restaurants in the same class because that is where their patrons' reference frame comes from. In the US, ratings measure, in significant part, race/ethnicity/subculture from which the restaurants clientele is drawn, because White Americans give higher ratings for similar descriptive satisfaction levels than other demographics (tending toward not unacceptable = 5/5.). Asians give the lowest scores for similar descriptive satisfaction levels.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y agoThis shows up nicely in Japan's ubiquitous review site Tabelog, where ratings above 3.5 are very good and above 4.0 are unobtainium. https://www.eater.com/2017/2/21/14686118/tokyo-tabelog-restaurant-ratings https://www.eater.com/2017/2/21/14686118/tokyo-tabelog-resta...
- dboreham 7y agoI never look at aggregate scores (unless, I suppose the score is "one star"). Instead I read individual reviews, and keep reading until I'm reasonably confident I'm seeing a consistent pattern (either good or bad). This is time consuming but seems to work for me. One example of why this approach is necessary: very often people will give a restaurant a low score with a comment like "Way overpriced" or "Portions too small". Well, I actually want to pay more money if I get significantly better food (often, but not always, there is correlation), and I don't really care for huge portions.
- pcurve 7y agoYep. I check both. I found Google ones are on average inflated by half star.
- asdff 7y agoI bet that forgettable greek place is in fact excellent.