There are people on this site that I wonder about. They seem to be experts in every city around the world - have been to every country and are intimately familiar with the food scenes - their life experiences are always relevant and make them an expert in every topic . . . . .
That google is a terrible things - one quick search and all of a sudden they are a definitive expert on anything.
Remember Sam F? He really was knowledgeable about a lot of the worldâŚand cooking. Also @jfood who travels for business and eats out. There really are many who are out and about a lot.
Yeah, but it shows up. They rely on whatever Wikipedia, etc, has to say and clearly have no real knowledge of what theyâre talking about.
I guess I donât really care where they get their info as long as its valid. I knew someone on CH who lied regularly, pathologically really. Like recommending someplace that he hadnât been to in 25 years but not stating that.
Some of it is how they present the info that they have (ie it may not just be google). For ex., I have a friend who dines out quite a bit more than me (and is much more of a foodie) but still is no high roller, works a more than full time job, has a family, etc. And weâll be talking about a local restaurant and heâll say âoh, I used to love that place, but theyâve been going downhill latelyâ. One hears a statement like that, and it seems like the speaker must be dining out frequently, and has eaten there a number of times in the recent past. But when I respond âI havenât been there recently, and in any case I donât dine anywhere often enough to know if itâs been going downhill, as opposed to a one-off bad experience,â his response is often along the lines of âwell, I have only been once in the last year, but it wasnât as good as beforeâ.
So he takes his one data point of the year, that it wasnât as good as in the past, and transforms that into âtheyâve been going downhill latelyâ, making him seem much more hip and worldly. Heâs not lying, and heâs not using google, but the way he presents his data gives a different impression than the actual reality. I think thereâs a lot of that on CH (and probably here).
Donât break your arm patting yourself on the back. 
My mother was the queen of that.
I think there two extremes and many âin-betweenâ. You have people who indeed go out to eat very often and clearly able to track the evolution of the restaurant, and you have people who havenât even been to the restaurant and simply cite other peopleâs opinions. I think your friend probably is in between, which isnât so horrible.
He probably he went to the restaurant once recently and the quality isnât as good, and then have found the same opinions online from other people. Then, he said âit has been going downhillâ.
The other thing you bought up is the âone-off bad experienceâ. I usually like based on at least two bad incidents to proclaim the restaurant is bad because I think every restaurant can have one bad day. However, I remember many posters here have said that one incident is enough because most people do not go out often. So if they cannot even make opinion call based on one incident, then they will never able to make any claim. The other thing is that for some people they will not re-visit a restaurant after one bad incident, so they will never have two data points.
I agree. I donât get to dine out that often (except for Sunday morning dim sum), so if I go to a restaurant and have a negative experience, be it the food or service or something else, Iâm not really inclined to go back- but I probably wouldnât give it a bad review based on one visit, or even two, unless something spectacularly awful happened. Everybody has a bad day.
Every restaurant can have an âoff nightâ and with that in mind I will forgive a lot if I see a true effort to correct mistakes.
If I have a bad experience either food or service and I care enough to point it out, my feelings then depend on how exactly the restaurant responds. If they seem genuinely concerned and make a sincere effort to rectify a situation Iâll cut them some slack, if they are indifferent or donât really acknowledge the complaint or criticism, then I would post a negative review of the place based on just one experience.
SD- San Diego?
FTC- federal trade commission?
Câmon. Help me out here.
SD I believe you are correct. (My assumption based on the next fact)
FTC = Food Talk Central a similar site to ours here. Founded roughly the same time as HO (Hungry Onion) however it is far more West Coast based and focused than HO. So I believe SD would fit in the context of that conversation.
Thanks. If thereâs one pet peeve I have in this twitter and text new world order, itâs acronyms.
FTC was also created by ex-Chow members and several members here also belong/post there.
ITA! WTF? SMH. JK!
I guess HO hates acronyms too, I just tried to post the above and got the âBody is invalid; try to be a little more descriptiveâ message
LOL
Can I double like??
Late reply grey, but that sounds like âWalnutâ. I too flagged their nonsense to the CH mods, but it made no difference. Iâm sure the posts would still be there if anyone can be bothered to look.
Walnut was likely having a long running joke at the expense of everyone else, but it became very tedious.
No, it was Smiley. Walnut was aggravating, too, but may have been legitimate, just someone with an obsessive personality. There are people who just canât cope with directions which arenât totally precise.
SmileyRandomnumbers drove me up. the fucking. walls.
But yeah, def a bot.
