Disturbing example of CH insider-ism and why it might discourage new members
There's a new Japanese yakitori place in LA called Yakitori Bincho that's getting some mention on the LA boards. And that's great. However, I'm a little disturbed that the original poster that alerted us all to the restaurant got so little notice. Here's the original post: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/506313
The only respondent was Rameniac, a well-regarded LA chowhound, who later posted about his experience at the restaurant. Rameniac did credit the original poster Vittus for the find, but I was surprised by the quantity of responses to his post, with many of them thanking Rameniac for the find. Later, another well-regarded poster Exilekiss posted about Bincho with another flurry of responses. Here are their posts:
http://www.chowhound.com/topics/516011
http://www.chowhound.com/topics/518195
I know there was no ill intent on the part of the LA CH community, but this does look a little odd. Why was there almost no responses to the original poster, a newbie, and so many for the established hounds? I wonder if this kind of thing discourages the original poster to discontinue posting about his/her discoveries? I notice that Vittus hasn't really posted in the last month, and perhaps has gone his/her own way by now. That would be a shame, since this might be one of the best posts on the LA board this year. Now, I don't want to see a lot of "thank you" posts either, but I think it could be helpful to new members to comment on the original thread, as a means of encouragement. I'm not sure what it takes, but it just looks like the community turned a cold shoulder to a new poster who took the time to introduce us to a significant place that wasn't on anyone's radar. These are the most valuable posts/posters. I don't care for those "where should I eat in ..." posts that tend to get a lot of responses, since I get very little value out of those, and frankly, I find a lot of bad advice on those threads.
Here's another post on the Manhattan board that might be the single best contribution in 2008 on tamale street vendors in upper Manhattan: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/514388
These are the posts that are examples of strong signals as opposed to the noise that require a filter in those mega-threads on "what should I order..." I hope we do our best to keep these posters around.
E Eto
May 14, 2008 01:26PM
As a new poster, I will say that your perception is exactly right. I've found this a rather difficult community to enter and am really surprised at how mean you can be to each other. Doesn't mean I won't visit, and post, but it certainly has given me pause and illustrated to me that not all foodie board share the same feeling.
Permalink | Reply
Agree entirely! Thanks for pointing this out. It's extra important to credit and engage new hounds (especially the ones giving great new tips) so they'll come back with more chow tips.
Often you'll hear about hounds saying that they calibrate their tastes to those that have a posting history, so that they know who's reliable and who's not. While this can be useful as an easy way to get good food, it totally misses great tips from new hounds.
It's not unusual to find that folks aren't willing to follow up on a new hound's tip, because they don't know if the new hounds are reliable. That kind of playing safe, by only going to tips from established hounds, is almost the moral equivalent of only going to places recommended by a guide book. We should have a high threshold for deliciousness, but a very low threshold for deciding to explore a place or follow up on a tip.
Permalink | Reply
This advice is laudable, but I find it difficult to follow. My time and dining dollars are precious commodities, so I try to improve the probability that I'll get good advice by listening first to folks with a track record of being trustworthy, having similar sensibilities to mine, and/or having some special expertise or passion that I don't yet have.
This has little to do with my sense of adventure, more a suspicion that in the broad universe of unknown posters, the chances of getting bad advice are far greater than getting good advice. The assumption that the average unknown poster may be unreliable can be confirmed by the number of bad places where there are lines out the door vs. great places that are mostly empty. That's even before we get to the difficulty of assessing whether an unknown poster might be a shill, a crank, or an ax-grinder.
I wish I had the luxury of following more tips from first-timers, but my own experience is that it's better to wait for them to establish their bona fides as a) someone who at least has a modicum of what I'd call "good taste" (e.g., they don't love The Cheesecake Factory) and b) they don't have an agenda other than finding and discussing great chow. I find those qualities very difficult to assess in a first-time poster.
Permalink | Reply
Lots of chowhounds explore places where we have completely no information (not even a terse tip from a newbie) and that's how new finds come about. If there is a tiny bit of information like a post from a newbie, that shouldn't change the desire for exploration; at the very worst it's just a piece of information to let one know that a certain place exists.
Chowhounds tend to size up an unknown place critically by reading the menu to look for interesting stuff, seeing what people are eating, interrogating the waitstaff etc... even before tasting a couple of things. One shouldn't stop doing that just because one is following a tip. Follow a tip, but do it critically as per normal chowhounding. That might also mean engaging the newbie with questions about the place etc...
It's just not about getting reliable knowledge from a newbie (or anyone), but also about figuring out what is unknown, so that one could go about filling in the gaps in our knowledge.
It's important to maximise deliciousness, but it's even more important to maximise NEW deliciousness.
Permalink | Reply
I definitely agree with this point about novel information being very valuable. There is a tendency on the Boston board to fall back on the same universe of known-to-Hounds restaurants, though many of these places aren't more widely recognized by MSM and guidebook-type sources.
Any time a Boston Hound (regardless of tenure) mentions a restaurant that previously hadn't blipped my radar, it goes into my my "new places" database, which is roughly categorized by formality/cost, location, and/or cuisine. But I still tend to try unknown places recommended by trusted Hounds sooner than places identified by newcomers. (The good news is that the shills are still pretty easy to spot, and the mods mostly keep them out.)
Permalink | Reply
Thing is slim, you're so well-known on the BOS board that people often end up crediting YOU for another hound's find -- maybe because you chimed in on a thread, or maybe because the poster didn't see the original thread, whatever. I also don't think it's mal-intent on the poster's part, but it is good form to give credit to the hound who really discovered a place.
And I always knew you have a database. :-)
Permalink | Reply
I think it's kind of odd that people might credit me for being the first to identify new places on the Boston board. While I'm not shy about chiming in on a lot of places, and probably get out more than the average diner (partly out of inclination, partly out of professional duty), I've never been one to brag here that "I got there first". On the contrary: I often argue that getting there early is a mixed blessing: usually rough sledding, generally not a reliable indicator of how a new restaurant will eventually perform.
(I do have an equally food-obsessed sibling with whom the got-there-first thing is a kind of jokey contest: it counts as a win if you get there one second before the other. We've had footraces to the doorsteps of new places for the sake of meaningless bragging rights.)
I have been a loud and early advocate here for certain places I thought were worthy and under-recognized (Trattoria Toscana, Don Ricardo's, Taqueria El Amigo, Jasmine Bistro, for a few examples), but I can't recall a time when I was ever the first. That sort of thing seems more important to Yelpers than Chowhounds, at least in Boston.
Permalink | Reply
Hi, Vittus here. Thanks for your post.
I have been casually perusing Chowhound for a few years, and use it whenever I need to check out a restaurant, but I seldom post. I originally posted about binchoo because I happened upon it when it was brand new and was impressed by its authenticity both in taste and atmosphere. I just wanted people to know about it so that others could enjoy it and it would succeed.
While I didn't really have the intention of becoming an active poster on the board, I did wonder why nobody responded. I just assumed that maybe people weren't too interested in yakitori.
Just a moment ago, before reading your post, I saw rameniacs post about binchoo. It was kind of rameniac to credit me, but I was just glad to see that someone was getting it noticed. I wasn't sure why so many more people were commenting on this post...I thought maybe it was just his wording in the title. Now that I know he is a well respected hound, it makes sense. I certainly understand that people will be more likely to listen to someone with an established reputation like MR. Rameniac than an infrequent poster like myself. So, I don't really harbor resentment towards the chow community. I'm glad that word about Binchoo got out one way or another.
That said, it was a tad disapointing to get only one comment on my post. As you say, I don't really need "thanks for the tip" posts, but I was hoping other people would try it and post their thoughts in response.
It wouldn't prevent me from posting new finds....if I found another Binchoo I'd post it....but I'd likely not put as much time or effort in the description as I did on the original post. As I recall, that one took me a while.
My only other beef is, that I have sometimes found people to be a bit confrontational/snooty when I post here, but perhaps that is all in my head. IN any case that may have limited my amount of posts.
Permalink | Reply
I'm not on your board, but I wouldn't count "influence" by number of replies. Most of us have a LIST, and few of us are as assiduous as Limster, e.g., at followup. It wouldn't surprise me if you have plenty of cred with attentive hounds (who may not be frequent posters). [Um, how does a "casual" reader find the site talk board? ;-) ] Anyhow, I agree about encouraging newbies. dockhl, each board has a different flavor, sometimes skewed by a few. Please persevere, maybe you can help reset the tone of yours. Few people enjoy being mean.
Permalink | Reply
Vittus, glad to see that you're still around. With the swell of participants on chowhound, it seems harder and harder to filter through all the crap to find nuggets of wisdom like yours on Bincho. Please continue to provide tips as you find the notable ones.
Permalink | Reply
If I mention a place I've visited and liked, I don't expect a lot of responses. What exactly is the problem here?
Permalink | Reply
Well, the problem is that sometimes, new posters don't come back if we don't engage them. And that's bad because it can mean the new posters with great chowy instincts don't contribute, and we lose information about new delicious food.
Permalink | Reply
I think the problem here is knowing that they aren't coming back. They may not post frequently, but they may never have wanted to post frequently. If they only post when they're the first one to find a new spot that they think is truly Chow-worthy....they may not be posting much at all regardless of the reception. They may, though, be reading the boards and getting information and be ready to post if/when they find a new place that's worth it.
Permalink | Reply
I'm not a regular on the L.A. Board, so I really can't speak knowledgeably about the situation you've noted, E Eto. The situation you describe does seem insidery, and I agree that cliquishness is bad, but it's really hard to know what's going on there.
Melanie Wong once said "When you're in intrepid, super-sleuth, chowhound mode and ahead of the pack, it can be lonely on the leading edge. But 'hounds and others will eat better because you were the first on the scene, keeping the light on a previously undiscovered place." http://www.chowhound.com/topics/315476#1797592
I know it's tempting, but I don't think one should measure one's success as a chowhound or worth to the community by how many replies ones posts get. I am an "established" 'hound (whether I'm "well-respected", who knows, perhaps by some, certainly not by all) and there have been plenty of reports of mine that have met with thunderous silence, like this one: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/435270#2883986 For all I know, dozens of people have read it and have eaten better because of it. There are plenty of reasons, having to do with time of the day, other interesting posts bouncing about the forum, disdain for supper clubs with menus written by local celebrities, lack of interest of driving to a small town an hour and a half out of town whatever, that a post gets few replies.
It depends on the board, but, in fact, on my home board, I think it's more likely that a report by a "regular" poster will go without comment than a post by an "irregular" will. I think the rest of us know that the the "regulars" don't need that positive reinforcement. On the other hand, there are a handful of regulars on our board that are in the habit of replying to "irregulars" --"great post", "thanks for your report", etc., for the specific purpose of providing encouragement. (One particular poster comes to mind who also takes that as an opportunity to add a places link, bless his heart.) If I see that someone has already posted "great job" and I don't have anything chowish to add or any questions to ask, I let it be. I don't think it's a service to the community to have a slew of, 'Thanks for your report--I'll check it out" replies. One is enough. (We also have some mores on my home board against needless post-bumping). But if there are zero replies to a report by an irregular, I personally make a point of posting "thanks for the tip."
So, if I'd been on the LA Board and had seen rameniac's reply to Vittus' excellent report, I probably would have let well enough alone. But, that doesn't mean I wouldn't have taken note of Vittus' tip. Quite the opposite--I most certainly would have added it to my extensive list of places to check out. Unless I'm starved for that type of cuisine or spend a lot of time in that part of town, it could be months (or years, alas) before I get around to investigating that chowtip. I only eat out once or twice a week--there's only so many new places I can try and still patronize my favorites.
Also, sometimes I need more than one nudge to try a place--or, at least, to make it a higher priority to investigate sooner. Maybe everyone noticed the first report by Vittus. But, excitement started to snowball when the second and third "You have to check this place out" reports started rolling in. Maybe it seems unfair, but sometimes it's the later reports that end up attracting the attention--an avalanche is hard to ignore. But, Vittus should still have the satisfaction that 'hounds are eating better because of his tip. And he was credited for it!
Valuable chowtips come in many shapes and sizes--sometimes as long OPs with photos, sometimes, just an off-hand one-liner in a long thread. Here's my favorite Twin Cities chowtip of 2008 so far: someone found great NY style pizza by an off-hand tip by an "irregular" in a Philly cheesesteak thread. http://www.chowhound.com/topics/44237...
So, keep chowing, keep reporting. People are paying attention. If getting lots of replies to your posts makes you feel more a part of the community, then my advice is to post more. Hang around and answer all those "I'm coming to town where shall I eat?" posts. But know this: posting volume does not a chowhound make.
Finally, I know the folks from the more active boards like Manhattan, LA, and SF have a disdain for the "I'm a tourist, where shall I eat?" kinds of posts, but not all the boards are like that. We on the less active boards live for those posts and, in fact, are grateful when the posts aren't expressed thusly "I'm forced against my will to be stuck in your town for a week, is there anything better than awful to eat?". Bring on the tourists, visitors, business travelers...we love to point you to the great chow. But, please, report back after your visit! And don't feel bad if all you get in reply to your fantastic report is one post, "Great report; glad you enjoyed your stay."
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
"Bring on the tourists, visitors, business travelers...we love to point you to the great chow. But, please, report back after your visit! And don't feel bad if all you get in reply to your fantastic report is one post, "Great report; glad you enjoyed your stay."
The Dairy Queen, your post is very encouraging, and we need to keep great posters like yourself around!
I do recall posting an extensive report of a trip to NYC on the Manhattan board early on in my posting career (I still consider myself a newbie to this site, although I am a bit more self-confident and willing to post). The first comment I received was a single phrase: Golf clap. This was a post from someone on the West Coast, not a Manhattan poster. I went "HUH?" and looked up the slang definition of this phrase, and found it was used primarily as a sarcastic comment. Let me tell you, that was a very intimidating response. To this day, I don't know why that poster made that kind of comment.
Fortunately, I am not terrifically shy, nor do I need the approval of every person under the sun to continue to express my views. But this could have been very off-putting to many others.
This one mean post has been offset by many other kind, encouraging posts. But it is worthwhile to remember that sometimes the Internet is a lonely scary place, and sometimes, a little friendliness can go a long way to encouraging posting behavior!
Permalink | Reply
Yikes! I'm glad you didn't let that comment discourage you!
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
OUCH. I'm glad you stuck around. That stings! I always find new boards a little intimidating, and spend time lurking and learning before posting - learning the etiquette of the particular community. But kindness (or at least politeness!) doesn't cost anything. And that cheap sarcastic response to your post isn't something that would encourage a newbie to keep posting!
Permalink | Reply
Whoa, I just had to look that up myself (sorry for chiming in late here but I just came across this thread). moh -- I can tell you we in Toronto had a great time making recommendations, following your adventures and enjoying your feedback. Glad that comment didn't set you back!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_clap
Permalink | Reply
Thanks JamieK for the kind feedback! I can tell you that I find the Ontario Board quite fun, you have a great group going on that board. The good thing is that there are a lot of really great people posting on this site, and so the occasionally harsh comment gets very diluted. Thanks TDQ and Catskillgirl as well!
Permalink | Reply
"I know it's tempting, but I don't think one should measure one's success as a chowhound or worth to the community by how many replies ones posts get."
I think this misses my main point. I'm not concerned with "success on chowhound", I'm concerned that knowledgable new posters will decide to discontinue sharing tips because they might perceive indifference (or worse, disrespect) from the community (whether intended or not). Like I said, I don't think there was any intention by LA chowhounds to be disrespectful, but what you see on the boards smacks of "high school clique-ishness" (as someone described earlier). And that can turn some people off. I don't know what the solution is, but I wanted to bring attention to it, especially if it's detrimental in keeping knowledgable posters.
Permalink | Reply
I'm sorry, but I don't think it misses your point at all--you're making the point that Vittius was somehow dissed by the community because his post only got one reply and the next two posts about the same place got many. I'm noy trying to put words in your mouth but I think the essence of your point is that you believe Vittus only got one reply because he's not established, and the later reports got many replies because those posters are established. Just the fact that rameniac followed up on Vittius' tip is an indication that someone took Vittius seriously.
I'm not an expert on the dynamics on the LA Board, but I'm not sure I agree with you that that's what was going on.
Rameniac posted a very excited response to Vittus report. I don't think there was any point to the rest of the community piling on a hundred more similar, "Great tip, thanks" replies, if they didn't have anything chowish to add or any questions to ask. It just doesn't add value for people to pile on if they have nothing of value to say. How many "Great tips, thanks" replies would have been enough for Vittus to be validated or to demonstrate he had been respected/accepted by the community? Wasn't one "great tip, thanks" by an "established" poster (and the later acknowledgement of same poster for the great tip) enough?
My point was that many reports by "established" chowhounds go with no replies whatsoever and it's not an indication, in my opinion, of how great a tip people think it is or how respected a person is by the community. Nevertheless, when I see these kinds of posts by individuals who don't post often I personally, if no one else has beaten me to it, make a point of acknowledging those posts. I understand you're saying that you don't have a solution, that you're just pointing this situation out. What I'm pointing out is that I don't think this is that different than how this works with even established posters.
It doesn't surprise me that by the second or third mention of this place by different people, there started to be enough excitement generated for people to want to start asking questions about it and think about checking it out. And if rameniac was excited enough about this place to start an OP rather than dredge up Vittus' report, excellent though it was, why should he not do that? I don't think we should begrudge rameniac an OP for such a fine report, even if it isn't the first fine report on the restaurant. People start new threads to all the time to talk about a restaurant they're excited about, even if there's another recent thread floating around on the first page.
I'm just saying that if a post gets one really nice reply as Vittus' did and the poster gets an acknowledgement a month later for his fine post, that's pretty dang good whether you're established or not.
I agree with you that we should go out of our way to be friendly to and acknowledge posts by "new" posters. But, I don't think we have to fawn all over them. At some point, chowhounding has to be its own reward--not the constant feedback from the community.
EDIT: oh, and there are occasions that I let a very thorough and detailed report by a "non-established" poster languish with no replies because they've posted a glowing report about a restaurant I dislike. In those cases, I've decide the friendliest thing to do is ignore them rather than feel obligated to say, "Nice report, but I disagree with you; that place is awful." So, I'm not sure what should be done in those situations. I hate for people to feel ignored, but I don't want them to feel attacked on their first report, either.
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
I'm going to make the additional point that Vittus post was at 2:15am on a Saturday, whereas Rameniac's was in the middle of the day on a Monday. Sometimes the timing of your post can be everything on an active board like the LA board.
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
You still miss my point, but that's OK.
Permalink | Reply
I would sincerely like to understand how I'm missing your point. Perhaps you can email me off the Board if you want. I'll put my email address in my profile. I don't see any evidence of disrespect or high school clique'ishness in this scenario, just an evolution of excitement about a restaurant. If your point is that newbies will be discouraged because they only get one reply to their reports and said replier actually follows up on their tip, reports back and credits them and that the newbies will get discouraged and will perceive this as "indifference", I still disagree. [EDIT: actually, I don't necessarily disagree--maybe newbies do perceive that as indifferent and to that I say, what the heck more do they want? An engraved welcome to the forum plaque from the chowhound team? If there are perceiving this as indifference, I say they are expecting instant gratification in a situation where they perhaps shouldn't expect it because even the "regulars" aren't always getting it.] Nevertheless I think we use threads like these in site talk to reassure newbies that this is natural on the boards, that not every post gets a flood of replies. Sometimes it's lonely on the leading edge of chowhounding...
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
I can give you another example of this phenomena. A thread will develop, and a poster not "accepted" into the existing "cool group" will make a recommendation within that thread for a place they like. That recommendation will go completely without any response / comment. Then one of the "cool group" will make the very same recommendation farther down the thread. That post is met with a flurry of positive responses.
Like it or not, this "attitude" is a problem. As Davewud so rightly points out, the second review could have easily been added as a reply to vittus, ESPECIALLY considering that this his post represents the source of the Nile in this case.
I feel that Chowhound "etiquette" dictates linking to post zero in this case ought to be accepted practice. As E Eto so eloquently explains above, the harm that this practice does to the site means the well regarded hounds, (as Limster is seen advocating and doing) need to actively think about how they can encourage hounding, rather than discourage it. In the case of vittus and others like him, "you don't know what you've got till it's gone..."
Permalink | Reply
This happens with much frequency on the Manhattan board.
Permalink | Reply
It would have been nice, yes, if rameniac linked the post, but he mentioned Vittus by name as the source of his tip and I think that is sufficiently within the boundaries of the customs and practices of the board to give "credit" to Vittus. Not everyone provides a link to old threads, nor do they need to. He could have dredged up Vittus post--again, it would have been nice, but not everyone loves the search function. And I don't think it's "damaging" to anyone if an old post is clearly referenced, even if not linked. But, I agree, it's nice thing to do. It's what I actually do mostly because I like the tidyness of keeping the discussion of a restaurant in a single, easy to find place... But, I think that's probably just my weird need for order. ;-).
I'm not saying clique'ish behavior doesn't go on on these boards (as described in your hypothetical example) it can and does whenever there are human beings involved. We should guard against it. I'm just saying that it's hard to say for sure that's what's happened in this situation the E Eto has called to our attention. The only "fault" I can find in this situation is that rameniac, who graciously replied to Vittus post, who followed-up on Vittus tip, and reported back and credited Vittus for his tip, might have linked back to Vittus original report. He could have even posted his own report in Vittus original report. Sure he could have done things a little differently, but I think what he did was fine and simply a matter of personal style. I think we're really splitting hairs here. I'd hate for people to hesitate to post about their great experiences at a restaurant because they don't know if they've followed the EXACT etiquette for giving someone credit. And how far back do you have to go, really? When we start legislating this kind of behavior and coming down on people for such minor infractions, we will also choke the flow of chow tips.
As far as your hypothetical example, I have to confess I don't see it happening that often on the Midwest board, though, I'm sure there are occasions when it happens. Really, I think think the scenario you're describing is a matter of people scanning the threads rather than reading them carefully. By the time they get to the bottom, they only remember what they read most recently and respond to that. I see all the time people saying things like "as Danny said above" when it was soupkitten who said it, and so on. I don't think there's any malice to these kinds of things. But, I'm sure what your describing goes on, but I personally don't see a lot of it.
I do know there are posters who seem to dislike other posters and pretty much try to stay out of each others way, including not commenting on their posts. I know there's one poster who specifically avoids replying to my posts. I would actually prefer these kinds of people practice avoidance as they have been rather than get into a pissing match in every thread. The Midwest board is home to a lot of different people and we all do our best to get along in the interest of the chow.
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
"...Really, I think think the scenario you're describing is a matter of people scanning the threads rather than reading them carefully..."
I would agree if my example wasn't enough of a pattern / practice that it seems to be more than a mere coincidence or a simple "scanning" issue. And people in the mid west have a well deserved reputation for being "nice" to strangers as well as other native mid westerner's.
Permalink | Reply
Ah, don't be fooled. We call that Minnesota nice, Minnesota ice. Teasing aside, I think my fellow Midwesterners are lovely, considerate helpful people and I am so grateful for them for accepting me into their community when I transplanted a few years ago. Nice has its drawbacks, though. I think some people are reluctant to provide a dissenting opinion because it might not be nice enough. And dissent is important, too. As you can see by my commentary in this thread. ;-).
I don't know how to resolve the practice/pattern you're describing except to say rise above it yourself. If you see an outsider, try to set the example and be the one who acknowledges them on occasion. You can't do this constantly, of course, but it's the only way I can see.
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
interesting. the various boards have entirely different dynamics.
The PNW board is almost entirely Seattle because it has been abandoned
by everyone else. the midwest board is a welcoming place, perhaps because it encompasses 11 states.
And midwesterners are generally nice folks. :)
Permalink | Reply
To Dairy Queen:
Given the size of LA and the number of hounds there, dooesn't it strike you as just a bit sad that it took generation of some excitement from established posters for other hounds to try the place (and thus to be in a position to say something other than 'thanks'?)
I take Eric's point to be that he is concerned with the net result:a smaller community means more 'in breeding' and less reports of new deliciousness! (and I agree with the concern).Thanks Eric for the general push to go out and report on some new stuff....
Permalink | Reply
No, I don't mean to be dense or argumentative, but I don't see this situation as sad at all. (By the way, I'm not try to be critical of you, susan, but I do think it's a tad insidery to refer to a poster by his first name when it's not part of his handle, in his post anywhere, or in his profile.) I think you're all looking at this scenario differently than I am. You say it's "sad" because "it took generation of some excitement from "established" [my emphasis] posters for other hounds to try the place." You are perceiving that it's the "establishness" of the posters that generated the excitement here. I disagree.
I think you're all missing the point that Vittus, a relative "unknown", reported on a place (at 2am on a Saturday--he's lucky, or more appropriately, we're lucky, rameniac saw his post at all). The next day, someone thanked him for his report. Within one month, said poster followed up on the tip, reported back ecstatically and thanked Vittus AGAIN for his report. (You can argue whether he should have linked vittus' report or made his report as a reply to vittus' thread, but, that is a matter of personal posting style--he did at least the minimum necessary to give vittus credit.) Bolstered by now two very favorable reports, more people tried the place and reported back and a third report was made. This is about as good as it gets. You make a report, someone checks into it and, good golly!, they report back thanking you and saying they love it. More and more people are encouraged by the second and third reports and the place rises to favorite status. What more do you expect? A place was discovered. People are eating better. vittus got his thank you from rameniac. I call that a victory for the community of Chowhound.
All we really have at the end of the day is the satisfaction that we're eating better and our posts are helping others eat better. There are no Congressional Medals of Honor or Nobel Prizes for Chowhounding that I am aware of. It's just all of us, sharing our thoughts through our keyboards. We try to be polite and respectful and thankful and supportive. This is what a community is.
Personally, in my universe where time, money, gasoline and calories are all budgeted carefully, it takes 2-3 glowing reports from various 'hounds, established or otherwise, to tear me out of my chair, away from my keyboard, and rushing to try a new restaurant (unless I happen to be in that neighborhood all the time or I'm starved for that type of cuisine. If someone, anyone, posted about a good dim sum place in the Twin Cities, I'd be there this weekend.)
No, usually what happens when I read a good report from a poster, established or otherwise, is that I add the restaurant to the bottom of my already very lengthy "to try" list. (That I find very sad...that I don't have the time, money or calories to try all the places I want to as quickly as I want to and have to instead maintain a list). If there's a sudden rush of glowing reports by one, two, three people, established or otherwise, the restaurant will move up more quickly to the top of my list and becomes "must try as soon as possible". It's not quite that scientific, because I'm not that organized, and there are really a few more factors that go into my choice of restaurant (where my partner feels like eating, for instance; or that a new place that has opened up along my commute route that no one has reported on and I see as my chowhoundly duty to investigate and report on), but that's my general approach. Maybe my approach is sad or makes me a bad chowhound, but that's how it works for me and, I'm guessing, at least a few others.
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
I have never met Mr Eto...I think I got that his name was Eric from public blogs and media he has been mentioned in...but now that you mention it I am not sure his name is even Eric or that he is even a he...FWIW. Actually, did a quick Google and his name is Eric: his Linkedin page comes up and he mentions Chowhounding as an interest (I assume it is the same guy). Anyway, I use strangers names to be friendly; it doesn't mean I know them, but I will keep your point in mind.
To the point, your last paragraph basically IS my point. I think it is sad that it takes two or three established people raving before the place goes to the top of the list. If you consistently follow that policy, you will never be the one posting about a great new find that no one else knows about, and the community will be poorer as a result.
I realize of course that we are all very busy and don't always have the time and money for CHding that we would like to spend. Still, seeking out new delicious places is at the core of what Hounding should be, IMO, and we should all strive to that (me included. Believe me, I know how easy it is to get into the rut of going to the same old favorites....)
Permalink | Reply
Amen!
Permalink | Reply
Whoops, sorry I misunderstood your point. That's what happens when PWI (posting while an insomniac).
As I mentioned (parenthetically) in my last paragraph, there's always room at the top of "my list" to try that new little restaurant that suddenly appeared on my commute route (or whereever) that I feel is my chowhoundly duty to investigate... I don't let my list of "tips from others to investigate" get in the way of my own chowhounding...This is one reason I don't get to try as many places recommended by others as I would like to or as quickly as I'd like to. So much chow, so little time.
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
I'm usually on the Tokyo board as I am based in Tokyo, so no idea how things usually are on the LA board (and not sure what one poster here means by hounds being "mean" to each other - the Tokyo posters certainly all seem pretty nice and open-minded).
However, and this I think applies to all boards generally, while I think there are some really good points made here in relation to the treatment and encouragement of newbies, I would probably be a bit more relaxed about it. It's pretty normal, even if it isn't fair, that people trust a source they know. That applies to established products, respected newspaper columnists or posters on websites such as these. If the responses to a newbie's posts are limited, if I was the newbie and interested in getting into exchanging culinary opinions, I'd just be a little persistent, post a few more times. If the posts sound interesting, I am sure people will gradually start responding. All "established" posters on this board started off as newbies at some point.
Permalink | Reply
I'm just wondering why Rameniac felt the need to start a new thread when simply responding to the original would've been fine.
I'm sometimes amazed at how many similar threads there are on these boards. Quite often born on the same day.
DT
Permalink | Reply
That is an excellent point. Especially considering the posters who dredge up years old posts for whatever reason. It would have been a way to both honor the OP / Discoverer of this place and to generate the same amount of traffic regarding the food here.
There is absolutely a "high school clique" thing going on within the LA board, but just like with the "Lord of the Fries" there is nothing that can be done about it.
Permalink | Reply