Criticism has a LONG history: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-16-critics-changed-way-art https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-16-critics

Criticism has a LONG history: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-16-critics-changed-way-art https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-16-critics-cha... SOme crazy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Sewell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Sewell Critics in art, books, music (live, recorded), film, and tv have become personalities in their own right. The plots, drama, name calling, shit slinging of criticism pushes it almost to the level of performance art itself. The anonymity of the the restaurant critic is in face not name. Its to avoid special treatment, bribes, questions of journalistic integrity. (and bribery in criticism is a whole topic in itself) I agreed with the poster above me, that Open table should stuff it. But that that does not change that they WANT to do it. Is there a good reason? Why is a great question to ask. Does every one need to be anonymous when reviewing products, dining, film, books, music? Is there a benefit from identity and candor? Would it change people's takes on things (the internet is filled with people behaving badly so I dont think so)? Maybe you want to be the critic of down and out eateries that I like to frequent, and Im going to follow your advice (or yours mine) because were identified and peers... (a social network of shitty eateries of sorts). I doubt open table is doing it for any of these reasons... there's something more basic there, what is a good question!