How many visits for a review?

Question

Just read the scorching (pardon the pun) review of Bonfire in the Phoenix and started to wonder about how many visits you should make to a restaurant before reviewing it. Robert Nadeau only went twice to Bonfire. Is that enough? I know we (regular chowhound-type folk) don't have the time or luxury to always visit a place multiple times but it does bother me a little when I see someone here or other places, trash a restaurant after 1 or 2 visits. What do you guys think? Just curious.

Answer

2 part answer to your question...I think 2 visits to a restaurant is fair enough..if the first visit is shortly after the restaurant opens, I would note that and maybe revisit in a month or so. 
 
That being said, I could not disagree more with the Phoenix review..interestingly I was there about the same time as him on his second visit...and loved it..my post below. The restaurant made a slip..overcooked my steak, and quickly corrected it. There seems to be a very negative bias to his review..the fluffy loaf of bread that he mentions was absolutely delicious...the tacos are not fried corn but flour..so...some people prefer flour tortillas..tuna taco was awesome...the Caesar which claims to be authentic is not made tableside..how many in Boston are? probably includes anchovies..does it or doesn't it? what if it does? so do a lot of places..I happen to loke anchovies in my salad and don't care if some Italian guy made it without anchovies in Tijuana, Mexico 80 years ago...they were also nice enough to give him a free dessert and coffee when they realized he was not happy with his supper..maybe if he had voiced his unhappiness earlier (like I did), they could have done something more. I normally like Robert Nadeaus reviews but, I've got to say I disagree here.
 
But 2 reviews, maybe spaced out a bit more for a new place is fair.
 
2 vi

Link: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/show/141641#756912

Answer

My two cents . . . 
 
While the number of necessary visits for a professional reviewer can be endlessly debated, the number necessary on this site is clear: ZERO! And that's the way it should be. To me, this site is about collecting and providing as much information as possible about good (and, sometimes bad) places to eat. Any tip - whether it be based on one visit, ten visits, or something you heard from a friend of a friend - all adds to our knowledge base. So long as information is properly qualified (e.g. "I heard from a fairly reliable friend . . .), there is no miminimum number of visits necessary to post a tip on this site. At least, I hope there isn't!!!

Answer

Thought you might all be interested to know that the Improper Bostonian review of Bonfire (the Pheonix's review of Bonfire being the starting point of this message stream) came out this morning. The reviewer based his/her (I forget who wrote it) opinion on three visits to the restaurant.

Answer

My view on the number of visits for a professional review is -- until you have a good sample of the menu. I think too many visits simply assures that the critic is no longer anonymous, and skews the results. I do think if you find a stinker, you have to go back and make sure. In this instance, I went twice, and made my editor go a third time because I anticipated a lot of controversy. This chef had a meteoric rise and I was about to write the first negative word. In the instance, there was no controversy because other critics waited for the restaurant to correct itself (as I wrote that it would), and the chef was about to go into a personal, financial, and legal crisis -- of which the dismal opening of Bonfire was a kind of warning tremor, but from which he did emerge and opened other more successful bonfires -- I reviewed the one in Logan Airport more favorably. In writing the review I tried to restrain my usual sarcasm and jokes because the fall of a giant is a serious matter, and also because when you are delivering bad news you want to lean over backward to be fair. This is why investigative reporters try to find the most attractive photograph of someone who is the subject of an expose -- or used to. I almost always review the most expensive steak in a steakhouse because it is a signiture item. My issue with the initial Bonfire porterhouse was not the price, but the incompetance. There was no reason to think that a kitchen that screwed up it's top-ticket item was going to put more love into the cheaper cuts.

Topics

Locations

Your post has been published!

How many visits for a review?

More from Chowhound

Food Trends

Birria Red Tacos Prove Soaking Your Tortillas Is a Genius Move

Food Trends

The Unassuming Ingredient That Stands Between You and Perfect Salsa

Food Trends

These Easy One Pot Meals Minimize Kitchen Messes

Home

The Ultimate Guide to Cleaning & Decluttering Your Space

Trending Discussions

Dine with a celebrity mannequin at Peter Luger, Brooklyn...

Dish of the Month (DOTM) Voting, March 2021

March 2021 COTM Announcement – Jubilee by Toni Tipton-Martin

POSOLE - Home Cooking Dish of the Month, February 2021

February 2021 Cookbook of the Month: LIDIA BASTIANICH MONTH

Quick Links

Latest Discussions

Cookbook of the Month

Dish of the Month

Weekly Menu Planning

Get fresh food news delivered to your inbox

15 Pasta Recipes to Keep You Cozy Through a Winter Storm

Chowhound

Policies

Community

Editorial

Content