"If I had to guess, I would say that my readership is about evenly divided between those who want to know about the just-opened restaurants because they like to try new places, and those who prefer that I keep an eye on established places because it's fun to read about familiar restaurants."

Don't forget the rest and probably much larger audience (I'd say 80%?) who skim for material to be used as conversation tidbits.

Not that there is anything wrong with that... but the blog regulars and those who otherwise bother to write are by definition not going to be the core audience.

Dear MrRational, would you explain how, after evenly dividing an audience, there can be anything, much less 80%, left of it?
Also, "skim for conversational tidbits": what does that mean? Sounds like something an aquarium hobbiest would do.
Please explain how "blog regulars and those who otherwise bother to write" are not a (or the) "core" audience. Apparently there are a great many people who read this blog who rarely if ever comment. Is that the group you consider the core (I don't necessarily disagree, btw, just asking) and if so, how in the name of Boswell's Johnson have you been able to figure out that they're reading this blog to "skim for conversational tidbits"?

Might this Sascha have started out aboput 20-22 years ago as a caterer?

In the 70s. EL

I'm quite sure that those who comment are a very small percentage of readers, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Erm...duck fat or schmaltz rather than grease, please?

My comment was not about the blog itself... it was about the reviews.

Going back to the days before blogs and instant feedback existed there was always an audience for reviews of theater, film, architecture, restaurants, etc. and a few stalwarts among them would write in to EL or John but not so many. I don't believe this has changed much even with the blogs.

My point is that even among those who claim to be regular readers of these reviews most are and always have been superficial readers and what isn't facile about it is done in the form of their own review of the review.

This audience is looking for those tidbits they will manage to sprinkle into conversation during the week or (at best) the phrases and terms they have learned to be either in line or contrary to their own tastes.

And exactly how do you know all this, MrRational? Not through intuition, I presume.

Mr.Rational is correct. I sprinkle my conversations with things I read here all the time.

Of course, everyone thinks I'm nuts. (It may be the tidbits I choose to sprinkle.)

The only time I hear anything "sprinkled into conversation" about any of the reviews from the Sun from anyone I know are in discussions about whether we want to go to a relatively-recently positively reviewed place for lunch. As in, "Hey want to try that Federal Hill burger place reviewed in the Sun the other week?" "Yeah, I saw it got a good review. Hopefully, there won't be any children there."

Anyone who tries to make more intellectual discussion or sprinkling over a dining review is beyond pretentious. Why not just discuss Lacan or Derrida and really bore everyone to death? Mr. Rational, I'm sorry that is the world you know.

Why not just discuss Lacan or Derrida and really bore everyone to death?

Or Ulysses.