The dirt in food reviewing

06 Aug 2010 09:37a.m.

Tony Forsyth wrote:

Peter Calder should stick to films or be put out to pasture. He wrote a piece about our restaurant a few years ago with an appalling piece of "journalism". The "review" was full of half-truths and factual errors, including telling his readers that our bottle prices start at $270, which was utter crap. Mr Calder obviously doesn't care a toss about the immense damage his half-baked and ill-informed scribblings cause. I'm glad he has been finally exposed at last for what he is. "The Herald on Sunday" can do better, surely.

29 Jul 2010 12:56a.m.

Graeme Fife wrote:

I have worked as a chef for 26 yearsand have run fine dining kitchens in Melbourne, i personaly have been reviewed many of times by experienced food critics and have fared very well indead. Currently i work in a Gastro pub, (up market pub for the novice food writer of the press and Herald) My food was described as the best that had been tried in a long time and my deserts to die for. In the review (which was complimentory) we were discribed as a pub with fine dining prices. Hello we are not a roast of the day serving deep fried roasted potato organisation and if this writer had gone out to one of our 2 only real fine dining restaurants in Christchurch then she would find that our pricing is actualy around $10 per item cheaper and instead of a 120g portion of protien you get 250g of protien. Lets get it together and report responcibly and declare that you are an average person with little or no food and beverage experience but that it is your personal opinion. I want to be criticed by profesionals or at least my peers. My taem can benafit and learn from it. When a review comes in the busines takes on an emediat 20% change in turnover, if an inexperienced reviewer gives a bad review and that busines"s turnover drops by 20% then the staff who had done nothing wrong at all may directly suffer with less hours of work or in some instances loss of job due to the drop in turn over. Is this fair if the restaurant is actualy performing and nneds that 20% increase in turnover that they would have gotten if they had a profesional review them. Jernolists have a sosial responcibility as well and i found Peter Calder to be an arogant Pleb that needs to stick to what he knows, writing not reviewing.
Thank you Camble live for letting me vent as i am realy angry about this topic and i would like to say that most hospotality people would have been working when you eared that topic so the responce could have been huge. I apoligise for the bad spelling but i am not a writer.....

28 Jul 2010 07:30p.m.

Steve R wrote:

Lauraine Jacobs has got it right.
The restaurant industry is a serious business, peoples investments and livelihoods depend on it's reputation and it should be reviewed in a fair and competent mannor by skilled industry professionals - As any one would in their own profession - Restaurants get judged with every course of every meal and the customers will ultimatly decide the restaurants fate. So if you want a guide to a good restaurant send a will skilled food critic with a bit of industry nouse and we will all be better off.

28 Jul 2010 04:10p.m.

John wrote:

Anyone can say the liked or disliked a restaurant /meal /service etc. It takes an expert to assess and communicate why it might have been good, bad or indifferent, and to separate that judgement from whatever else might be going on in their lives. The best professionals are very much in the market for honest, informed and constructive feedback - and that's what potential customers want too.

Would Calder front as a judge on Master Chef? If not, why is he writing restaurant reviews?

28 Jul 2010 01:50p.m.

Uaina wrote:

Not knowing the difference between a steak and a scotch fillet, is like Richard Loe calling the ruck 'n maul a bloody Scrum. We read articles by Richard Loe because he is an expert in Rugby. And no I don't want to read a review of the All Black games by a Raving Fan who hasn't played test rugby. Nor will I read a review by a common diner if thats all you are, and that is 'your' point of difference. My goodness Peter Calder, what are you doing reviewing Restaurants if your not a expert in Cuisine and just a "common diner" as you put it. How could you put the livelihoods of the owners in jeopardy.

28 Jul 2010 01:38p.m.

bob wrote:

peter calder should be removed from the new zealand heralds publications! His scathing, uninformed comments in his reviews are literal bullshit, which have cost many award winning restaurants their lives work.

28 Jul 2010 01:14p.m.

Rusty Bary wrote:

Thanks for the restaurant review article last night. My partner and I are standard working kiwis, who like to go out for a meal once or twice a month and special occasions. We often go out for dinner in Hamilton to find it very hard to get decent service let alone food. My partner is vegetarian and we have to look hard to find somewhere that has vegetarian meals (more than a salad and one other option, and no fish is not a vegetable), we always ask if they can modify a standard item on the menu and its rare to find a competent person to relay the requests to the chef. They are constantly telling us things are vegetarian when they're not and stuffing the orders up. So, in short what i'm getting at is, you don't have to be a qualified chef to know that the service is crap, and a meal tastes good. Reviews are not all about the food, as sometimes the food is not able to be eaten. Come on Hamilton restaurants sort it out.

28 Jul 2010 12:18p.m.

Michael Smythe wrote:

A good critic seeks to inform and educate the reader so his /her experience is enriched by deeper understanding. When the critic operates as a constructive component in the process of continuous improvement the subject will welcome the feedback - that is why Natalia Schamroth said she wanted to be reviewed by people who know more about food than she and her Engine Room colleagues (now there's a challenge!). Her response shows she cares much more about each customer's experience than those who commission the critics do. Customers and good restauranteurs want the same thing - informed feedback from experts in the field. Editors who do not meet that standard deserve one star reviews.

27 Jul 2010 11:06p.m.

Alkha Daji wrote:

Thank you Campbell Live for your segment on restaurant reviews.
Now that Peter Calder has advised that restaurant reviewers don't need to be experts in the field of Cuisine, I can stop wasting my time reading reviews.
I am a travel consultant and an expert in my field and quite frankly, if I am reading a review on a hotel, I expect it to be written by an expert who is going to be aware of relevant comparisons.
Quite ironic that this story has highlighted Mr Calder's ineptitude as a journalist.
It seems that his bid to bolster has ego has, in fact, harmed it.

27 Jul 2010 08:46p.m.

Scott Alderson wrote:

With regards to the comment that when a new restaurant opens reviewers will report it because it is "news", I would like to know why Engine Room, GPK, The Grove, Merediths, dine, et al are consistently reviewed each year? Sometimes in the space of a few months, and in the case of the Herald, within days by different reviewers.

Close to my home, the fact that Bracu is (according to Cuisine) the only restaurant worth reviewing in South Auckland is absurd. Papakura, Pukekohe & Clevedon easily have restaurants where value for money, quality of food, ambience & professional service are the equal of Ponsonby or Parnell.

The reality is that these reviewers are visiting places recommended by (and attended with) their buddies, and not committing to providing quality journalism where they actively seek to experience up & coming venues that operate outside of traditional restaurant lists.

I think some humility would be good here too - would so many blogs be operating at the moment complaining about review standards if the public were agreeing with their comments?