4 ms·
Not to mention the Zagat ratings are often wildly inaccurate. For example, in my city, they gave the "best French restaurant" title to an overpriced chain, not
by CountHackulus 14y ago
Not to mention the Zagat ratings are often wildly inaccurate. For example, in my city, they gave the "best French restaurant" title to an overpriced chain, not to the actualy French restaurant, run by a French chef, that has a 3 month long waiting list. Having been to both, and to France, the two don't compare, and yet Zagat doesn't even mention the good place.
Not to mention your very valid point on their "30 point" system which just plain doesn't make sense. A metacritic type thing would in fact be WAY better. Also they should add Michelin stars, because those I've at least found to be reliable.
- qq66 14y agoZagat ratings are often used by travelers, casual diners, etc. If they included a restaurant with a 3 month waiting list they'd be setting up a lot of their readers for disappointment.
- jamesbritt 14y agoIf they included a restaurant with a 3 month waiting list they'd be setting up a lot of their readers for disappointment. Unless they're planning in advance. I'd be kinda pissed if I arrived in a city and learned there was a kick-ass French restaurant but was not warned to book in advance when that was a real possibility and I could have done so.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jrockway 14y agoI think you want Michelin, not Zagat. I don't know much about restaurants, but it seems that Michelin sends anonymous professional reviewers to restaurants, while Zagat aggregates and edits reviews from "normal people". The result is that Zagat will emphasize convenience and down-to-earth-ness (for lack of a better word), while Michelin will concentrate on the novelty of the food. Ultimately, the point of reviews is to avoid bad restaurants, not to find the best restaurant.