Love the not-so-subtle dig at you-know-who (with the initials MB). LOL:
And she filed her first review on A Mano:
Time will tell whether mid-range means the same types and styles of restaurants MB already are reviewing. We need some diversity in restaurants reviewed.
I’d just settle for a critic who doesn’t love salt so much and has no conflicts of interest
I miss Anna Roth’s reviews of less expensive restaurants, so I’m hoping that Rachel Levin is looking at similar places. Michael Bauer is boring!
Yikes, one star out of four.
Say what you want about Michael Bauer , at least he gives separate star ratings for food and other aspects of the dining experience.
I was taken aback by the one star rating as well, especially since it didn’t seem to correspond to the narrative. I searched in vain for an explanation of Eater’s rating system, but did discover they have a zero star option. I’m guessing they’ve copied the New York Times system, in which one star is “Good- except when it isn’t.”
While I don’t remember seeing this when I visited the review a few days ago, I noticed that there’s this explanation at the bottom of it now:
Zero: not recommended; one star: okay - good; two stars: very good - great; three stars: highly recommended, excellent; four stars: beyond exceptional.
The Internet Archive captured the review on June 20 (the date of first publication) and shows that only the first sentence of the explanation was in the first version:
Eater rates restaurants on a scale of zero to four stars, taking into consideration food, atmosphere, service, value, and the context of the restaurant within the larger dining landscape.
The second sentence (which you are quoting) was added later. I’d like to think it was in response to my comment.
A post was split to a new topic: [San Francisco, Hayes Valley] a Mano