3 ms·
> Nope, people got recipes from books and magazines, which were considered reliable gatekeepers. You're making my point - they were gatekeepers because they we
by nkozyra 6y ago
> Nope, people got recipes from books and magazines, which were considered reliable gatekeepers.
You're making my point - they were gatekeepers because they were discoverable and promoted. That's what gave them credibility. Just as showing in search results does now.
People didn't pick cookbooks because they had the most aimless stories that hid the actual recipe.
- tired-dev 6y agoNo, but when you have a cookbook or magazine, you also have things like photos of what the finished product looks like, so that you can a) tell if it looks like something you'd enjoy b) tell if it turned out right after it's done. None of the recipes on this site have any pictures, which I think will hold it back.
- ghaff 6y agoI'd say most people these days very much do pick cookbooks for the text/stories, design, etc. Raw recipes are pretty much a commodity these days.
- nkozyra 6y agoThese days? Sure, but I was specially talking about pre internet. This is a rather new phenomenon that i believe comes mostly from SEO and a shift to things like cooking and organizing becoming commoditized "lifestyle" genres.
- SamBam 6y agoThey were gate keepers because there was an editorial standard to uphold. That's what gave them credibility. If you run the magazine Food & Wine and you just publish random recipes that you found for free in church-ladies' xeroxed recipe pamphlet, you're going to lose your readership pretty fast. Of course, some magazines applied more standards than others, and so that's when the reader learns to trust the recipe in Food & Wine (or whatever, I'm not recommending them) over Reader's Digest.