I believe that in my humble opinion that some people that Blog take it entirely to far with some of there comments. Leave the reviews to the professionals. The wonderful thing about food is that it is so subjective, what might not be good to one consumer, might just be heaven to the next. I have noticed that some people are just out right disrespectful to some of the restaurateurs in Baltimore without understanding that what they write is now in print somewhere and someone will read it, and possible take it out of context. I can appreciate some of the comments because they have made me take a constructive look at my establishment, and make some changes, but others are just rude. Think about this Bloggers I don't know one restaurateur or chef that woke up in the morning and said to themselves "I think I am going to put out a bad meal today" I try to please my regulars to keep them coming back, if one of my regulars gives me some constructive feedback I take it rather than the Blogger who has chosen to put me on BLAST for the world to read.

While Mario is correct in in his criticism, especially with the example he cited, he also must understand that that responding to a blog in it's comments section (if allowed) is the easiest way to counter a false claim. Try that with a newspaper, and you never know if it will published.

I thought the first comment would sound better in French.

Je crois qu'à mon avis humble que certains que la prise de Blog il entièrement à loin avec certaines de là commente. Laissez les revues aux professionnels. La chose merveilleuse au sujet de la nourriture est qu'elle est si subjective, ce qui ne pourrait pas être bonne à un consommateur, force juste soit ciel au prochain. J'ai noté que quelques personnes sont justes hors d'irrespectueux droit à certains des restaurateurs à Baltimore sans arrangement que ce qu'elles écrivent est maintenant dedans la copie quelque part et quelqu'un le lira, et prise possible il hors du contexte. Je peux apprécier certains des commentaires parce qu'ils m'ont incité à jeter un coup d'oeil constructif à mon établissement, et fais quelques changements, mais d'autres sont simplement grossiers. Pensez à ce Bloggers je ne connais pas un restaurateur ou chef qui se sont réveillés le matin et dit à eux-mêmes "je pense que je vais eteindre un mauvais repas aujourd'hui" que j'essaye svp à mes militaires de carrière de les continuer revenir, si un de mes militaires de carrière me donne de la rétroaction constructive je prenez elle plutôt que le Blogger qui a choisi de me mettre sur le SOUFFLE pour que le monde lise.

Lady Elizabeth wrote: "We're talking about restaurants here, not the war in Iraq."

Which got me thinking--if Martha Raddatz had a food blog, what would it look like?

I can't seem to find Jay's comments?

Under the Woodberry Kitchen post. The problem is that you have to get all the way to the bottom. I'll link to them.

Opinions on blogs are just that; in the main, the person writing the review is someone you don't know, who may have entirely different likes and dislikes. Even on sites like Chowhound, you don't know who the people posting are, what their culinary experiences are, or their likes and dislikes. If usernamekma365 on Chowhound says that Piglip Junction is the greatest thing ever, not sure that you're looking at that like you would a Michelin Star.

Add in the somewhat 'interesting' dynamic of food critics and restauranteurs who, on occasion, may disagree about the experience that a food critic may have had, and now things are, as they say, really interesting.

Much as the francophone porcineite mentioned, hopefully any comments can be constructive in nature, and avoid being nasty, personal, or not useful to anyone reading it. Knowing people 'in the industry' as I do, they want people to be happy and enjoy their meals (and have good service). And if you should have a really good meal, let your server know. They'll let the chef know, and the chef will be very pleased to hear it.

Elizabeth--I think we've reached the point where 5 bullet points under "most recent comments" are not nearly enough to help us all follow all the threads going on this blog! We need to be able to search under posters as well--what did OMG say? Which Robert/Rob said ...? Sometimes I can't even remember where I posted something! Can the web dominatrix help us out here?

I'll send her a supplicating e-mail.

"We're talking about restaurants here, not the war in Iraq."

I often get the two mixed up myself. Take Yellow Cake, it's a dessert; it's a weapon of mass destruction; it's both.

I find this whole discussion really interesting because I am a food blogger (and bloggers are nothing if not navel-gazey).

I doubt I have enough readers to draw the ire of any restaurateurs and, at any rate, I don't write a whole lot of restaurant reviews.

But I do, occasionally, write something negative about a restaurant. There's only been one occasion when I've written something REALLY bad - and it was a REALLY bad experience and the fourth or fifth time I'd been to the place. Usually I try to be as objective as possible in my descriptions, and if it's the first time I've been someplace, I'll make that clear.

I read a lot of other Baltimore food bloggers and I find the same to be true of their writing.

So, yes, consider the source when you're reading a food blog, and feel free to comment if you've had a different type of experience someplace. But I don't think it's fair to say "leave the reviews to the professionals". Eating out is subjective, and for that reason alone I like to read a few different takes on the same place.

Don't get me wrong, I think Elizabeth's reviews are great, but I like to round out her experiences with, say, Fairfax's thoughts.

Finally (yes, I'm going to wrap it up soon!), I can't speak for others, but I don't blog to ruin anybody's career - or even their day. Mostly I blog because I like to write and I like to eat and it's fun for me to combine the two. It gives me an interesting perspective on what I eat. That's it. I hardly think it's fair, though, to expect me to keep any bad experiences I might have to myself just because I'm not a "professional".

OK, that's it. Ending rant. Whew.

I think alot of the establishment of whatever industry tends to dislike the blogosphere. Many perceive it as a threat to the established order.

Blogs are a great leveler. At one time only a select few could give their opinions on politics, sports, and food. Now, however, the right to opine has been democratized. While most people who blog are largely unread by anyone outside of their moms, we are now seeing the rise of some bloggers rising above the noise to become trusted voices. In addition, the overall blogging community is acting as a collective filter of information, which produces an expert of the many in the same vein that all the participants in the market produce and disseminate the information of prices.

Take a look at the book " The Long Tail". It discusses the transformation of the dissemination of knowledge from the few to the many to the many to the many.

Elizabeth Large is a professional journalist who writes about a subject on which she is our home town newspaper's resident authority. That's a bit different from most bloggers, however talented or knowledgeable they may be. That she writes with a large dollop of humor is a plus. And that we have a lively forum for sharing our culinary likes, dislikes and experiences, good and bad, is a pleasure. I was grateful, for example, for the restaurant week comments that turned me on to three terrific meals -- and away from some that I suspect I would have enjoyed less. Turning Elizabeth loose on the blogsphere was a smart move on the Sun's part, witness the growing numbers of comments that so many topics here inspire.

Kit: Thanks for reminding us all that "[e]ating out is subjective." That's something we need to remember not only regarding blogs but also - and perhaps, most especially - about reviews/critiques and their authors. And I could not agree more with Mr. Gray's comment (above).

It looks like Mario doesn't care too much about what his customers think anyway - I'm referring to that Globe Life story you linked under the Fork discussion where they mentioned him not turning down the noise in his restaurant in spite of complaints and losing a "star" from the New York Times.

I just realized that that must be an old picture of Chef Batali. I saw him on TV recently and he is twice that size now.

Well, it's from his Web site...

Well, I'm tickled pink that Elizabeth created an entry based on my comment.

Like some of the others, I too write a blog. It's got a bit about food but is more of a general life and travel blog. When it comes to Batali, I disagree with him. Blogs can be wonderful resources, but like any reviewer or publication, the onus is on the reader to decide the validity of the data presented.

Whether it's on Chowhound, eGullet or the various blogs, I tend to develop a "relationship" with the writer - meaning that I read their posts (and post history) to see if their tastes are in unison with my own. Unfortunately, this takes time, but once I've got that confidence in the writer, I can take their word on the subject and eat (or not eat) at a place based on their thoughts.

The problem that chefs have is the one guy who comes on and says that this place sucks and he'll never go there again (usually for unsubstantiated reasons, or not) and another reader blindly accepts that "review" and never visits the restaurant for themselves. That is a problem, but it's part and parcel of the territory.

Another problem they discuss is that most bloggers visit an establishment only once while a reviewer for the paper of record will visit several times. I see both as valid approaches. The professional writer is there to really give us insight and depth with their multiple visits. The blogger offers a glimpse of what the average joe will experience - especially since the average joe does not typically have the resources or patience to visit a place multiple times just to figure it out. If they don't hit it on the first try, they're SOL.

I think Batali's comments have to be taken in context; he wasn't slamming bloggers in general.

Jay C- great points that the reader of said review/blog has to take the information and do with what they will with it.

Question for the Elizabeth- I know that the G&M (Globe and Mail), NYT, WP typically make at least 2-3 visits to a restaurant before doing a review. How many visits do you make to a place before writing a review (Tom Sietsema of the WP has explained his procedures in detail which helps the reader)?

The Sun's policy has been to duplicate the consumer's experience and send its reviewers once. I try to make that clear in my reviews. Of course, If the visit is out of the ordinary in any way, I go back. I know this is controversial, but I don't see it changing any time soon. There are too many other things they want me to do besides reviewing restaurants. I would say the most positive thing about the policy is that it's allowed me to continue for so many years. Otherwise I'd be burned out by now.

I find blogging your business is a wonderful tool to share your thoughts, products, as well as offering the readers the latest on your business, sharing recipies, and to let them interact with each other. From my experience I can tell you that having a restaurant blog is time consuming. I update mine periodically, and wish I had the time to make it more active.

Observations:
1) I mentioned this blog to a restaurant manager: "All restaurant critics are idiots" and walks away. And yet she won't go to a movie without reading a review.
2) Blogging IS democratic and like democracy it's messy, corrupt, and loud, yet still better than any alternative
3) I like that you (EL) only get one bite at the apple. Multiple sittings is ridiculous, it is unrepresentative. Also, since we PAY for our one visit, we are less forgiving. Plus we aren't supported by sales of ads and we can't get fired or left for dead at the company retreat in the woods. (I heard that happened to David Simon).
4) Everything especially the "News" is subjective.
5) Believe nothing you read and only half of what you see.
I see MIchael Tabrizi and Joshau Hill posting under their own names and I think, "That's cool." So blogs are bad if you sit in your ivory kitchen and scowl, but better than "professional" reviews where the chef/restauranteur has no means of positive input. Besides, people overpaid princesses like Mario and Bobby Flay make their fortunes off of whoring themselves on pop cutlure dog and pony shows. I'll bet you would get the most hits and responses if you started a topic that showed her grinning mug and just these words: "Rachel Ray. Discuss" I dare you.

Oh, Voodoo Pork! How could you?

And I refuse to put this under the Rachel Ray post on general principle.

Admit it Anonymous ... you love her! Sometimes we secretly hate what we fear we are deep deep down inside ... there is a tiny EVOO umpah lumpah marching around your brain trying to get out! Let it out, you'll feel better.

I'm that particular Anonymous. I just didn't notice that it didn't remember my info until the third post.

Anyway, luckily for me umpah lumpah suggests anything but RR to me.

However, it is in and of itself, an earworm. I'm unlikely to get it out of my head for the rest of the day. Everlasting gobstoppers, anyone?

Now I'm pondering the fate of Veruca Salt, who was a bad nut, thanks to Janet. Did anyone suggest either of the Charlie movies back when we discussed foodie movies? I prefer the original with Gene Wilder to the Johnny Depp version. (He does good weird, but this one was creepy ... IMHO)

Janet said:

I'm that particular Anonymous. I just didn't notice that it didn't remember my info until the third post

Don't feel too bad, Janet. I've accidentally been anonymous a time or two as well.

I love Johnny Depp, but I agree, Dahlink, that he was creepy.

Now, he can do Sweeny Todd any time, but for Willy Wonka, Gene Wilder's is the one I perfer, too. I don't know why, because the Johnny Depp version is more true to the book, but there's something about Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka that just feels right to me.

Thanks, Hal! You're a prince.