The Bauer Response
Shortly after I posted The Bauer Curve, I e-mailed Michael Bauer, suggesting that his readers would be better served if he was stingier with his 2 ½ star rating. I also directed him to my full blog post.
Lo and behold, not only did MB respond to my e-mail, he used the post as fodder for Tuesday’s entry in his blog, Between Meals. I’ll choose not to be offended that Tuesday was April Fools’ Day.
The gist of Bauer’s response is that he intentionally injects sample bias. I alluded to this possibility when I said, “there’s probably some sample bias as the Chron isn’t likely to visit greasy spoons.” However, MB pointed out a much more significant source of bias, “Generally if a restaurant doesn't earn at least two stars, we won't review it…. We usually don't trash neighborhood restaurants…. … I may decide not to review places after the first visit. … Only the best get the full on three-visit review.”
MB also states, “The main reason I review something that comes out to less than 2 1/2 stars is if the place has received lots of hype or buzz [or if a] previously reviewed restaurant…has gone down....”
This jogged my memory. The Between Meals FAQ says, “If we go to a corner mom-and-pop place and find that it's not very good, we won't write a review.” I saw that ages ago and had forgotten it. My original post would have been stronger if I’d remembered this tidbit and pointed it out. Mea culpa.
Reviewing the list of 1 ½ and 1 star reviews confirms what MB says in his post and FAQ. I’d argue that a few – Al Fresco Cafe (1 ½), Bistro Yoffi (1 ½), Cote Sud (1 ½), Mi Lindo Yucatan (1 ½), Cha Am (1), and Laurel's Cuban Restaurant (1) – deserved the neighborhood/mom-and-pop exemption. But that’s only six out of more than 200 reviews, a solid record of consistency. Perhaps significantly, MB himself wrote only two of those six reviews (Cote Sud and Cha Am). Seems he's better at filtering out negative neighborhood joint reviews than are his underlings.
Still, I continue to believe that there’s a gap between what the Chron says they’re going to do and what they actually publish. MB himself says, “The ratings are kind of like a bell curve.” If so, one side of the bell melted. Badly. Ironically, these words came in response to a question asking why MORE restaurants didn’t get scores higher than 2 ½ stars – the opposite of my concern.
Bauer also stated, “I probably give more 2 ½-star reviews than anything else, which means that I consider the restaurant to be very good.” However, the explanation of the Chron star system says the two stars is very good. Since three stars is excellent, 2 ½ should be almost excellent. Equating 2 ½ to very good sounds like grade inflation.
Moreover, that Isa, Fringale and Cortez on one (good) hand and Buca di Beppo, Memphis Minnie’s and Dragon Well on the other (not so much) hand all rate 2 ½ stars reinforces my feeling that the category is far too inclusive.
In the end, I’m windmill tilting. My chances of changing the way the Chron awards stars are on the none side of slim and. Still, it’s feels good to know that I was heard by, and to get a response from, the man himself.
[N.B.: In both Bauer posts, I’ve assumed that Mr. Bauer, in his capacity as Executive Food and Wine Editor for the Chronicle, has ultimate responsibility for all reviews in the Chron, even those he does not personally write. If this assumption regarding the chain of command at the Chron is incorrect, I apologize to Mr. Bauer for attributing to him personally things that were done by and under the supervision of others.]
Comments