+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Rocco's gets a new NY Times review

  1. #1
    The race is back! John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    On the mat
    Age
    43
    Posts
    40,432

    Rocco's gets a new NY Times review

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/di...partner=GOOGLE

    One star, out of 4. He says the food is better, but still not great.

  2. #2
    FORT Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by John
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/di...partner=GOOGLE

    One star, out of 4. He says the food is better, but still not great.
    It's actually a pretty damn good review. He's complimentary of most all of the food. It seems like he's taking it down more for the environment of the place than for the food or service. And when you compare the level of restaurants that he's reviewing, that's pretty damn good. he's reviewing an awful lot of "Holy cow, how did they think of that" type food, and Rocco's isn't even pretending to be that.

  3. #3
    The race is back! John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    On the mat
    Age
    43
    Posts
    40,432
    I was actually surprised, after reading the review, the star rating at the end. It seemed like he was more impressed than 1 star, by the text.

    A little odd.

  4. #4
    FORT Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by John
    I was actually surprised, after reading the review, the star rating at the end. It seemed like he was more impressed than 1 star, by the text.

    A little odd.
    I'm not that familiar with the way the NY Times does stars, but is that really all that bad? If 3 stars are "holy cow, you're really made it", then for a place that is serving basic home cooking, isn't 1 good?

  5. #5
    The race is back! John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    On the mat
    Age
    43
    Posts
    40,432
    I'm not familiar with the way the NY Times rates restaurants either, but on a scale of 0-4, ranking a 1 would seem to be pretty low down on the list, wouldn't it?

  6. #6
    FORT Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by John
    I'm not familiar with the way the NY Times rates restaurants either, but on a scale of 0-4, ranking a 1 would seem to be pretty low down on the list, wouldn't it?
    Yes, except that I would think that 3 stars would not be heralded as such a huge achievement when you could get 4 ... which kind of leads me to believe that it's one of those scales that you've got to know to really understand.

  7. #7
    Embracing the Inner Geek museumguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    New York
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,602
    The New York Times unless you read it all the time has a very funny system for its resturant reviews. There are only five four star resturants in the entire city... and only 39 three stars..Michalin....all the four stars are French...and 21 isnt one of them....so its very hard to get four stars...not much easier to get three...or two...though there are alot of one stars...most resturants that they consider good get one star...if they get zero they also get a word....from average..to really bad...no they don't use either of those words....so one star means a bit above average but acceptable to dine at...not high praise but better then the earlier ones he got.....

  8. #8
    FORT Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by museumguy
    The New York Times unless you read it all the time has a very funny system for its resturant reviews. There are only five four star resturants in the entire city... and only 39 three stars..Michalin....all the four stars are French...and 21 isnt one of them....so its very hard to get four stars...not much easier to get three...or two...though there are alot of one stars...most resturants that they consider good get one star...if they get zero they also get a word....from average..to really bad...no they don't use either of those words....so one star means a bit above average but acceptable to dine at...not high praise but better then the earlier ones he got.....
    Thanks museumguy!

  9. #9
    Embracing the Inner Geek museumguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    New York
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,602
    Your welcome...I have read the Times for years...the numbers for the 3 and four star resturants came from their web site....unfortunately, it doesn't have a good explanation of their rating system....the paper does..(on Fridays...when they print several reviews....)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.