Why do you waste your time explaining how restaurant reviewers work to ignorant readers? There are plenty of people who appreciate a well-written critique.

Thanks, I think...

You won't get rid of me that fast. You STILL don't get the point...and I think I'm being proved right on Oolong based on subsequent readers reviews. You are SO desirous of such a place (big) that you (maybe subconsiously) gave the place a break on the food. I NEVER said style doesn't count. NEVER. But your article on Oolong gave ME the impression that, at least for THAT place for THAT review, style was winning out over food. Style counts, but it's NEVER at the top of the list.

Would you rather have the best food of your life in Local 188 or the worst food of your life at Fore Street? Or Oolong?

p.s. You're not saying your reviews are like a "flawless blue sky" are you? Nobody is that self-absorbed are they?

I would have hoped we could h ave moved on to other topics. For the record I had a perfectly good dinner at Oolong. Perhaps other haven't. Mine, at that moment, was delicious.

And no I don't need to have the best dinner in my life at a restaurant that's slovenly. IN terms of the "blue sky" I had someone more like you in mind that myself.

A better analogy might be someone putting on very expensive clothing to cover a body that hasn't been cleansed in years. Such finery couldn't hide the offending odors.

LOLOL!

Someone sure thinks they're special enough to have something written specifically to them!

John, were you secretly addressing this nameless reader?

Eh, I guess every troll has his day.

I'd like to say that disagreeing with someone and putting your argument in a calm, logical response tends to stimulate dialogue. But foot-stamping is just kinda silly and does nothing to persuade anyone.

If you just feel the need to unload your opinon, don't expect anyone to heed your "advice" or requests.

FKA, it's your opinion that style is never at the top of the list. I believe it's John's opinion that it is sometimes (if not often) at the top of the list. Obviously, you disagree. There you have it.

~Jes

Now there's an interesting story behind this nickel....

What I don't understand is why there's such a fuss as to which should be at the top of this so-called list. It seems like this mystery reader that has their knickers in a bunch is interpreting the mention of the decor first as it being more important. I'm sorry, what restaurant do you go to where you start with your meal before walking in and sitting down? I think decor is important, but John wasn't saying it's MORE important by making mention of it before the food...he was following the actual timeline of his experience. So he didn't go on an on about the food afterwards...maybe it wasn't exceptional. Perhaps it was just good. Since when does saying the meal was good, enjoyable, or however else he worded mean that he thought it was bad?

Seriously. Get over it. If you don't like John's opinions, about ANYTHING, food, decor or otherwise...DON'T READ HIS COLUMN.

Persnally I look forward to each new column as it adds to my list of places to try!

Recently I went on—some readers thought too much so—about how pleased I was that Portland finally had a restaurant (Oolong) that paid attention not only to its food but the décor as well. And why shouldn’t décor count? Let’s face it. Dining out in Portland is nearly as costly as it is elsewhere. Shouldn’t we have nice surroundings in which to throw our money around?
__________

decor was nice... but the food was definately lack luster--maybe to cater to the blander 'northeast' and the manager was unfazed regarding our 2 1/2 wait and having to return our entree. amazing what things stand out for other people.

Here's an even BETTER analogy. Someone putting on very expensive clothes to cover a body that hasn't been cleansed in years, but continues to be a good person at heart.

You would have us dismiss him out of hand. Isn't it who we all are on the INSIDE that counts?

And it's not the list, its the gist.

MaineToday bills you as "Connossieur John Golden", so I keep my expectations low.

Mr. Golden, please let us know when/if the owners of Fore Street have called and apologized and refunded the cost of your meal.

Their genral manager has single-handedly ruined the reputation of the restaurant by disclosing details of your bill.

Why is setting the record straight a crime? Please explain to me the big faux pas here. Were credit card numbers disclosed?

If this is something Golden chooses to do (critique businesses) he SHOULD live in a glass house...total transparency.

Billy Joel, the customer is always right. That is how a business such as Fore Street gains a positive reputation. But once you've earned that reputation, you have to keep it. It is completely inappropriate for a business to disclose someone's personal business (such as what they drank with their dinner) on the internet. The manager had every right to defend her restaurant, but should have done so much more tactfully. Knowing that they treat their customers' personal lives in such a blasé manner, I do not intend to patronize Fore St. anytime soon. I, too, would like to know when they have apologized for their embarassing actions.

John is NOT your typical customer...so maybe he shouldn't be treated typically.

And the customer is always right is a tired cliche. If the customer has a great experience at Fore Street but then writes a piece in the NY Times that says the place is horrible or is in any other way untruthful, then maybe they SHOULD be taken to task.

Although I can't stand his music, I gotta go with Billy Joel on this one. I'm not sure what "tactful" way the Fore Street manager was to use to tell her version of events. After several parsings of the original, what I read Mr. Golden saying is that the bill, with tip and two drinks each, was $178. The manager claims they had three drinks apiece, which, at Fore Street's prices, would affect the pre-tip bill by close to $20.

Mr. Golden listed what they ate and drank; the manager says they had one more drink each. Given that the review describes at great length the contents of their meal, I don't see how it's offering "personal information" if the manager says, "No, actually, you had a total of six drinks, not four as you reported." How else was the manager to support the claim that Mr. Golden wasn't accurately listing everything that led to the $178 bill?

The customer is not always right, especially when he's obligated by even tangential ties to journalism to be accurate.

Will this ever stop? Hey, Billy? Is that the Billy J of the East Hampton?. We were former neighbors and other dealings on Further Lane.

Let it go, let it go. It's boring and uninteresting. Fore Street is a great restaurant, we are lucky to have it in our city. John Golden just wants to be admired and loved, otherwise he would just eat, enjoy, and leave.

I am finding it incredibly hard to believe that no one has a problem with the manager nastily reporting that they had "3 Stolis" with dinner! She could have simply said "I appreciate your visit, but would just like to point out that you left out of your report several items that you ordered that would have affected your bill" or something to that effect. And the customer always being right is NOT a cliché! Businesses are there solely to serve their customers; without them, there would BE no business. So to treat them so poorly--food critic or not--is unacceptable. Billy is way overstating what Mr. Golden has done (if someone "has a great experience at Fore Street then write a piece in the New York Times saying it is horrible" is far from what he did.) And Jamieson, if you're so bored, then don't read the column.

If you cave in to the demands of unreasonable customers every time...you go out of business real fast. Do you REALLY think that business are only there SOLELY to serve the customer? Come on. There aren't any self serving interests like, say, profit? One misguided review can severely curtail profits don't you think?

What specifically was nasty about the managers comments?

Of course businesses are there to succeed, but I mean that their only way of succeeding is to make customers happy. That's how you make money. And if you don't think that manager's comments were nasty, then perhaps you are a nasty person yourself. Could explain why you post without using your real name. Why am I even writing this? So not worth my time . . .
On another note, Mr. Golden--what's your favorite restaurant in the Hamptons? We don't generally go out for expensive dinners when we're down there (hey, it's summer--supposed to be eating BBQ and lobster dinners!), but perhaps we'll venture out next time we're down there. Any suggestions?

Perhaps some of you should reread what I wrote before commenting in such a way. To paraphrase myself, I said I enjoyed the meal well enough but thought it wasn't up to their usual standards.I pointed out I wasn't fond of the duck salad; in fact the waiter asked how I liked it and I said it was OK but not my favorite preparation. He thanked me for saying so and said he would mention it to the kitchen staff who like to hear reactions to a new dish. My only other complaint was about the vegetable side, which tasted a bit off. If I remember correctly it was a sauteed brocoli dish that tasted heavily of vinaigrette and not much else.

Since I don't go to Fore Street as often as I would like because the hassle of getting in keeps me away, I was disappointed in hitting an off night, or at least an off night for me especially when I was so looking forward to going there. As I said in the very beginning, I was ready for my Fore St. Fix.

Any restuarant can have those moments. Generally Fore Street is a wonderful place and should always be held in high regard as long as those who run it are still there.

Hey, this is interesting: make a comment on spelling ("Connossieur") and people reply with abusive e-mails! Standards in Maine must really be slipping; when we grew up there, at least we learned to spell.

By the way, Mr. Golden, it's not just your online "editors" whose mastery of words isn't up to snuff. Readers would be hard pressed to find "Muscungous Bay" on a map of Maine.

Is this really the condition to which things have devolved to since we've been away?

Would my real name really make that much difference? It would be just as anonymous to you as any of the other names I use wouldn't it?

You don't make ALL customers happy, because some are unreasonable. That's just good business and if you don't recognize that, you've never owned nor worked at a successful company.

Even LL Bean has customers who misused their return policy and are now banned from the store. Hmmmm. Even LL Bean. The Maine epitome of customer service.

And John, the problem with your Fore Street review is that you called your tab excessive, but failed to disclose ALL the drinks you had, nor the excessive tip you left.

Gretchen I went on the record right away saying that I thought it was creepy that the Fore Street GM would post a bill total and drink list online.

On a funny side note, I was watching NECN this afternoon, and they had a quick segment of "TV Diner" with Billy Costa, and he was reviewing Fore Street of all places! And lo and behold, he gave a gold plate to all the aspects of the restaurant, except the front of house which he said was aloof and unpleasant.

You're right there. One too many
"U"s in Muscongus. A good copy editor would help too. I guess I was just in too much of a rush to attend to some of these foolish comments.

Yes, Jill, I do remember you making a comment about that right after it happened! Creepy is a very good description!
"B.J." (maybe you should rethink that?), lighten up. I don't recall ever saying that you need to make EVERY customer happy (although maybe I did, I don't remember), but I DO remember saying that the reason businesses exist is SOLELY to make the customer happy. I know that there are unreasonable customers, but I have no idea how that applies to what we're talking about here. Mr. Golden certainly wasn't unreasonable in any way and he deserves to be treated as a valued customer, which I'm sure he is (or should be). Great discussion, but I think we're beating a dead horse, to be cliché. John, you need to write another review so that we have something new to talk about!

I love to beat dead horses.

I guess we have different definitions of unreasonable. If I critique a restaurant and then proceed to write that the tab was excessive (and thereby tainting the reputation of the establishment) without disclosing all of my drinks and without disclosing my excessive tip, I personally think I would be unreasonable. And the restaurant, to protect its own interests, has a right to "set the record straight".

Gretchen, I hope you work at Starbucks....my latte yesterday was cold...I want free ones for the next year to compensate.

I guess Mr. Curtis has a problem with spelling errors but wrong word usage is no big deal. Golden continues to be in the "throws" and not the "throes". And who emailed you with nasty comments...I'd be interested in knowing (in the spirit of full disclosure).

Mr. Ed, what kind of idiot would be working at Starbucks after 6 years of college?
I guess "unreasonable" is a very subjective term. I don't think it unreasonable that his description of the number of drinks they had led to some confusion, and that when he said the tip was included in the cost he quoted, he failed to say just how much of a tip. That to me is a miscommunication, not unreasonableness (if that's a word).
I happen to love horses, so I've got to stop abusing this one! This seems to be bothering me more than it's bothering Mr. Golden!

And no offense to anyone who works at Starbucks! I was just offended by Mr. Ed's implication. Why I care is completely lost on me . . .
I find it interesting that you use the word "excessive" rather than "generous" to describe his tip. That says a lot about you.

Gretchen, I'm not so sure about who's being more bothered by these idiotic comments. Thanks for your kind words, however.

I reread my article yesterday and quite frankly I dont' see what all the fuss is about. In fact I gave the restaurant quite a nice review, citing just a few points that were a bit off. My comment about how the front of the room was in good hands with Lance holding fort obviously was misconstrued by Robin and Star who seemed to think that I was saying that it wasn't in such good hands when they were there. I could see the implication, but it's not how I feel about them at all.

As for tipping I could be accused of being both a generous & excessive tipper. For fast calculation I generally double the amount of the first two digits of a bill and then add some more if it rounds out easily; that way I'll often leave a minimum 20 percent tip but it usually winds up being 25 to 30%.

Quite frankly there shouldn't be one signle waiter in Portland who would complain about their tips from me.

This whole forum smells like elitism...the blogger and the posters.

People with 6 years of college can't work at Starbucks (and I love how you just happen to drop that fact)? I know people with Ph.D's who bartend because they ultimately decided that is what they really want to do. It's what makes them happy. I only mentioned Starbucks because my latte was a little tepid...leave to all you guys to blow it up into some sort of dis on those "unfortunate" blue collar workers who, at best, only have an associates degree. That must explain why they are so dumb.

I think I'm beginning to really understand this whole forum. Its' full of people who care more about appearances than real substantive issues.

And for the record, I usually leave 20% minimum, but if I include the phrase "ho-hum" in my review, and complain about the high price, I better disclose my practices.

I had a whopper at BK yesterday...it came to 50 BUCKS!! What an outrage!!! I'll never go there again!! (oh yeah, the girl was cute - i left her a $46 tip...but that's really besides the point).

Man, if we don't heap praise on John - WATCH OUT. I think it might be hurting his considerable ego.

Gretchen, I have to say, I think our horsey friend here is trolling. He's making the typical troll moves to argue successive minor points rather than staying on topic, since he clearly has no real ground to stand on when it comes to the original topic.

Don't worry about the dead horse.

John, I reread your review yesterday as well, and I have to say I agree. True, you left off two drinks, and true, you didn't disclose exactly what your tip was. But honestly, I never thought $30 seemed excessive. Generous, sure, but not over the top. It seems we have the same technique when it comes to tipping.

And I'll bet any waiter in town would rather wait on you than our trolling friend who seems so offended at that "excessive" tip. Based on the ridiculous comments here, s/he is likely a nightmare customer and a horrid tipper to boot!

~Jes

20% minimum makes me a bad tipper?

I feel like I'm talking to children here. How many times do I have to say it? If I review a restaurant and call the bill excessive, but fail to disclose my entire bill, or the fact that I'm in the 99.9th percentile for tipping...then I've mislead the readers.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

OK. You all have made your points excessively. Done. Done. Done. Next review please.

The next review is in the works. Hold on tight!!!

Will it be OK to look at your new review critically?

Or should I only post if I want to lavish praise? It's quickly becoming apparent that those who look at your reviews critically are "foolish" whose only desire is to post "neurotic, moronic, drivel".

P.S. Can we do a point-counterpoint blog sometime? I feel like we really have something here between us.

Ed, I actually wrote my reply before your last post. But I left it on screen too long to see your reply first. So my comment about your tipping was based only on your constantly calling John's tip excessive.

I still think you are being inconsistent by praising yourself as a good tipper at "at least 20%" and calling John's 24% tip excessive. What's the big difference there? Do you always tip at least 20% but never more than 23%?

But I think his point was that overall, the experience wasn't worth the price, regardless of what the EXACT price was. Just as I don't think there's a huge difference between 20% & 24%, I don't think there's a huge difference between $154 and $174 for the price of a meal (which is basically the difference we're talking about here between the "average" tip plus two omitted drinks), especially if that meal didn't knock your socks off.

This is not about constantly lavishing praise on John. I often disagree with him, but that doesn't mean one of us is wrong and one is right. We just disagree. Why is that such a difficult concept?

Looking forward to another review.

~Jes

Actually, I did all that math based on my memory (which I should know not to trust!), and upon review, the tip was somewhere between 20% and 21%.

178-30 = 148

30 is about 20.3% of 148.

He did mention that the total included tip (as it should, IMHO, since that's part of the custom in paying for a meal in this country).

~Jes

Let's look at the math.

If we believe everybody both the GM and John...the tip looks more like this:

Total = $178
Meal cost (before tip) = $136.50

Thats a $41.50 tip, or approx. 30%. That is certainly "generous". I have no problem with that tip amount, BUT, if you complain about the high tab, you must fully disclose your tipping habits.

AND, John left 3 drinks off his review (2 stoli's and 1 glass of wine). Let's conservatively say that all 3 are $8 each. That's $24 he left off.

SO, for the sake of argument, let's say that the difference between a 20% tip and a 30% tip should be disclosed AND the $24 in drinks. Based upon that math, Golden's total tab was inflated by approx. $38. That's 21% of the total bill.

Inexcusable. He didn't disclose a full 21% of his total bill. This is the kind of stuff writers do I guess...for dramatic effect.

Actually, the GM revealed that John's tip was exactly $30.

John said in the review they each had a glass of wine and a cocktail. The GM said the bill included a total of three glasses of wine and three cocktails. So that's two drinks that got left off, not three.

So the tip was just over 20% at $30, and if by your account the drinks are $8 each, he failed to disclose $16.

So the bill was $178, minus a $30 tip = 148. Minus the drinks = 132. Which is just about what the GM disclosed as being John's total before the omitted drinks and tip ($136). So the drinks were actually about $6 each, if we're not calculating tax.

This is starting to seem like a logic puzzle.

I still say, the original point stands. The meal was not worth $136 or $148 plus tip, according to the person who took part in the actual experience.

~Jes

Well then we have a conflict of numbers. Somebody (the GM or John) is wrong.

And the article leads one to believe that THREE drinks were left off. Here's Golden's exact wording:

"...but our tab of $178 including tip, a glass of wine and a cocktail each seemed excessive."

One could construe that he is saying one glass of wine for each, AND one cocktail for each, but the wording leaves it ambiguous.

What's also unknown, because it wasn't mentioned in the article, is whether or not his partner also had a appetizer...so there's potential here for even less journalistic integrity.

I challenge anybody to agree with John that a meal at Fore Street, with perhaps 2 appetizers, 2 entrees, 2 desserts, 3 cocktails, and 3 glasses of wine for $136.50 is excessive. Thats par for the course.

We are getting mired in details. At a minimum, John left items off on an piece that specifically cites the high price. If he doesn't make a point to mention price, I don't care what food items he chooses to talk about.