EL - I understand your reluctance to boil all of your careful considerations down to a star system, yet, I've noticed that for perhaps the last 2 years nothing has gotten 4 stars, unless I was snoozing and missed it. This implies to me as the consumer that there are no restaurants in our area that are so wonderful that they merit the highest of honors. Am I reading this correctly?

Yes, I haven't assigned 4 stars in awhile. I should, perhaps, because by the key that would mean "excellent" and I've certainly gone to excellent restaurants in the last couple of years. But I think readers think it means "nothing was wrong; it was perfect," so if I even complain that a dish was a little salty for my taste, I feel like I can't give it 4 stars. Like I said, I have trouble with stars.

I have the same problem with rating movies from Netflix. I have a friend who is very free with the 5 stars, but in my opinion many movies should get about 3 1/2--and I can't figure out how to assign a half star in their system, so I have to give either 3 or 4, depending on how generous I'm feeling.

EL: As a fellow reviewer subjected to a star system, I completely understand your quandary. In my case, I have 5 stars with which to contend plus the half-stars between. My editor/boss provides me with descriptions for each star point but, for example, the 3 and the 3.5 are the same. I guess I'm lucky in that I have 9 points from which to choose.

However, as a consumer and review reader, I tend to bypass the star rating in favor of the printed word. Personally I think the stars might be helpful in an abbreviated capsule format but I would hope that discerning diners wishing to learn about a critic's opinions would read the full story.

BTW: how much of your copy is edited? Sometimes, though not very often, it seems as though your text is altered to fit the space.

That does happen, I suppose, but I've learned not to read my stories once they're in print.

I personally like the star rating (your peers at the NYT, WP, LAT, and abroad use star ratings, as does Michelin) system especially when travelling. If it's good enough for a Michelin Guide, it's good enough for an American newspaper. It at least gives me some idea of what to expect, and how to compare.

I look at the Star ratings for what they are; the reviewer's take. I agree with Ms Large that a 4-star review should be the rarity; it should be superlative dining that truly goes well and beyond the norm; your peers at the WP and NYT aren't exactly generous with the 4-star ratings (and they shouldn't be).

But beyond the rating of however many stars, what I look for is why the reviewer gave the place X number of stars. Maybe explain your star ratings in detail in a future column.

Calling Owl Meat ... I would take a stab at this but I'm sure you've got strong philosophical grievances against this sort of thing. Go for it.

There are only five restaurants in the whole country awarded three MIchelin stars. What chance does Baltimore have?

Reductionist. Alienation from the spirit of the Universe. The Death of Art. Destructive technology. The only thing worse than accepting another being's subjectivity is an overcoat of false objectivity such as a bounded discrete number system for experience. Gold stars are for slow children with low self-esteem. Reducing a writer's craft to Star McNuggets is dehumanizing for her, but more so you, the one accepting it. Anyone asking for reductive subjectivity is a simple machine that will not survive in the coming tech-pocalypse. Eat your stars, machine-men. (You will) Need. Oil. Can.

Oz never did give nothing to the tin man...

I think the star system works very well for respected publications like the New York Times or Guide Michelin. However, for uneven publications, I think it works poorly.

I've found that the most important thing about the review is the writer. What is that writers' track record? How spot-on has their reviews been in the past? Do I agree, historically speaking, with the reviewers' viewpoints?

From there, I can deduce whether or not I'll find the restaurant to my liking.

It's like one of my friends who absolutely LOVES Outback Steakhouse but refused to eat at CraftSteak because it was "too expensive." Even though we're friends, there's a disconnect there between our tastes. Reviewers are the same.

I've always liked Gold Stars.

Please stop using "spot-on" unless you are English and wearing a monocle whilst (and that too) stroking a mongoose. And the usage here is wrong: "have", not "has", and it just doesn't make sense. And "historically speaking" is bloviation. Don't try to sound like Hugh Grant, we think he's an arse too.

Carry on mate.

Rule No. 2., old chap. EL