User submitted reviews are ruining the internet.

The goal of a review is fairly straightforward. Simple even. On a scale of a A to Z, 1 to 5, 10, or 100; its a scale to rate ones experience with an establishment. It could be a restaurant, bar, hotel, rental agency, local mom and pop store, chain or anything one can think of. If you are in the Google world, they prompt you all the time.

Know this place? Answer quick questions, they prompt.

And people do. Like the Google “Local Guide” who rated a local restaurant 3 stars … and they didn’t even try the food. Three stars because they closed earlier than Google hours stated and they were disappointed. Had Fred Evans actually ate there, the three star rating would be generous as best. Their food and service was a huge miss in the pleasing department. Yet, reading through the overall reviews, I am definitely in the minority. They miraculously maintain a 4.3 out 5 on Google. 4 from Yelp, Trip Advisor and Foursquare.
John’s review, the only 1 star I found, was closer to the mark. While I disagree with his billing argument, the food was absolutely horrible. Distasteful to the point where I just stopped eating. That is not something I do. Growing up as lower-middle class kid, one learned not to waste a meal … ever. I tried a couple of times. It did not end well. I either wore it, or ate it cold.

Reviewers Bias?

Is this even a thing? If reviewers were to have a reliability or social media score to factor in the weight of their review, it might help? I do not know. Or is it similar to watching the news when something occurs in a neighborhood and they are doing the man/woman on the street interview with the absolute dumbest person within camera range? In one thought, if we weighted reviews based on a merit system, do we silence the people with poor taste, lack of exposure, poor grammar (I’m guilty there), and those who think they are helpful? If I were to write that review Google prompted, it’d be this.
The wait to be seated was minimal, less than 5 minutes. During the stereotypical breakfast rush period thats called Bonus points! They made up for the seating efficiency by taking a solid 10 minutes to take our order. Then came the coffee. Like most breakfast oriented restaurants, either the coffee is good, or the food is great. Coffee sucked, food expectations were, in a word, shattered. Following the pattern of good to bad, our order was a little messed up. The waitress had to console her pad to verify our claim. I honestly felt an argument was averted because she was able to read the words she wrote. She acted as if it were normal for people to change their minds after the fact, yet failing to let her know. To compensate, she overfilled the coffee I was not drinking, the water my wife was not drinking. From bad to worse. Over easy eggs looked like runny flu influenced mucus. Gravy was inconsistent. It was a mixture of runny and tasteless, or thick and tasteless. Salt is great in moderation. Something they clearly do not understand. Yet as we picked through our disappointment, people kept coming. I swear I saw Jabba the Hut be seated! Those people, the clientele, mostly appeared as regulars. It was like they knew what they were walking into. Either that, or they were too old or young to remember what good food tastes like. They looked … not happy, but definitely in no condition to be disappointed. I guess in that being, both lived up to their expectations. The restaurant definitely does not know how to make good food, and their patrons, largely do not notice. 10/10, never going back. A definitive, unapologetic 1 star rating. Not all was lost. The wind chime over the waitstaff area never chimed. ericisnaked

Daily food

%d bloggers like this: