I would never do well in a position that has to endure constant criticism. I am much too sensitive for that ;)

As always, you handle these touchy situations with grace, dignity, and a touch of humor.

More than anything, you give us a sense of a restaurant and enough information to decide whether or not it's our kind of place. If, for example, you say that the food was superb but you had to shout to your companions to be heard, there's no way we're gonna' go. My wife hates noisy restaurants. On the other hand, tell us about an especially tasty dish, let's say duck confit (which I happen to love), and the restaurant goes on the "give it a shot" list. If anything, I think you bend over backward to be positive.

One time at work, Elizabeth leaned back in her baby seal-skin recliner, tossed up her hands and devishly shrieked, "POWER! THE POWER IS ALL MINE! MUHAHAHA!"

Typical day at the office, you know.

It is a tough situation. If you are too hard on a place, you have an agenda or axe to grind. If you are too nice, you'll be accused of being a shill or a friend of the owner.

To some extent, unless the review is so scathing as to make the public call for doors to be locked and the chef to jailed, any review is better than no review.

In the case of Pappas, I'm not going to run out to Parkville and eat there tonight. It is clearly a neighborhood place, and not destination dining. If I lived in Parkville, I probably would eat there. Ok, so Pappas hasn't gained a new customer in me, but if someone were to ask me if I knew of any seafood restaurants in Parkville, I would probably mention Pappas. Were it not for your review and the resulting conversation on the blog, I would have never even heard of the place.

I think that unless the review is scathing, which I have never seen EL do, [grammar failure] any publicity is good publicity. For new restaurants you are telling people that the place exists and they will check other sources too. For something like Pappas it will remind people that it still exists and that's probably positive. Just being reviewed has value, but even though the Sun is little dimmer it's still the most credible rag in town. Compare to Baltimore Magazine where reviews are veyr often dismissed out of hand because people believe they are biased toward advertisers abd potential advertisers.

EL's got cred, CitySearch doesn't.

The role of the print restaurant critic remains quite valuable to both the consumer & the restauranteur. While it's popularly held that glowing reviews go to loyal or potential advertisers, I think the editorial direction of most (if not all) local writers is for a totally different reason. Readers want to read about a restaurant they should patronize. Why would anyone pay for a paper or magazine that suggested where NOT to eat? A professional restaurant critic has the ethical responsibility to provide honest & well thought out opinions. These should give the consumer valuable information to make their dining choices AND the restauranteur ideas to better manage their kitchen & dining room. We are fortunate to have several critics in Baltimore that I am pleased to read weekly & highly respect the opinions of. Not to say that they are not often completely & inarguably wrong. (in no particular order): Large, Gorelick, Zajac, Lautermilk, Farlow.

Ah, the question of where NOT to eat. I just heard from a friend that they ate at Alizee last weekend and would not recommend it. This was a Saturday night and they were almost the only ones there--not good.

I've enjoyed reading the occasional review of a train wreck restaurant. I don't want a steady diet of it, but if a place is really bad, I do want to know that before I wander in.

I don't think you are going to see a lot of train wreck reviews coming from a mainstream publication.

EL has already said that if the food is really bad she won't review the place. So, the restaurants reviews that end up published will run from very good to so-so/ inconsistent.

RoCK, I remember that Elizabeth avoids negative reviews. The New York Times, however, has published a few classic take downs.

In response to Pappas' being a "neighborhood place" you couldn't be more wrong. While it used to be that way, it has become quite popular with people from all parts of Baltimore county because it offers good portions of quality food at reasonable prices. If that makes it below your standards of "destination dining" then I agree that you shouldn't make the trip.

I trust EL's reviews as I do Gorelick's. I may not always agree but they try to give an honest -- and helpful -- appraisal of what they experienced. That's not true of all Baltimore restaurant reviewers. No names please but at least one local magazine seemed to be running the same review every month until recently. The food, service and atmosphere was always wonderful. There was inevitably one caveat. (Maybe an item was over-salted or a salad under-dressed.) Otherwise, we love you so please advertise. Said magazine has been a bit less predictable lately. But I sitll have far more faith in the Sun reviews.

So, you've finally admitted that you're ineffective? I guess that that could be a journalistic goal...
Jay was right, you're in advertisement, not criticism.

Psyd, your comment is logically contradictory. First, her job isn't to influence a business. It is to inform the readers of the facts and her subjective experience. That information and entertainment sell papers. Circulation sells ads (or used to).

Every critic in the world could have said that "My Dinner With Andre" was the greatest movie ever and yet it would never be a blockbuster. Similarly every critic can pan an Adam Sandler movie and no matter how moronic, it will still be a hit.

Ineffective? Other than one of the sports blogs, this is probably the most visited blog on the Sun. It certainly has the most diverse and interesting commenters. I know personally that this blog gets talked about in the real world, I overhear people in Little Italy talk about it all the time. That's influence. It's a living thing.

The playing ground here is incredibly level. Any restaurant of value gets attention. Advertising? That doesn't make any sense.

The nature of reviews of anything is subjective and I refuse to accept another person's subjectivity (to paraphrase Sartre). But I trust Elizabeth and Richard's reviews; I trust that they are their honest and informed opinions.

There is a widespread perception that Baltimore Magazine's reviews are influenced by advertising or at least used to strong arm advertisers even if the writers' opinions are honest. From a business standpoint that has more plausibility because the magazine has a shelf life of a month. A printed restaurant review is gone in one day. The review is the advertising – good or bad. But it's just publicity, not advertising. An ad is positive propaganda paid for by the advertiser.

I have no knowledge of Baltimore Magazine's editorial integrity; however, I avoid the magazine as I have no real need to know their take on Baltimore's Top 100 dog kennels, day care centers, proctologists, etc...

RoCK, how about the top 100 dog proctologists?