h a l f b a k e r yLike you could do any better.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The top 100 restaurants are described in every single restaurant guide. But restaurants number 100-200, which I think make up the bulk of most eatings-out, register almost no text in any restaurant guide I've seen.
When they are included, it means that the book is either huge (since it must perforce
cover the top 100 restaurants also), or useless (like Zagat, which tries to cover 1000 restaurants and thus can only devote 5 lines to each).
A great idea (there are $$$millions$$$ in this, I tell you) would be to have a book called "Restaurants 100+" which starts at #100 and continues until the book is full.
Thank you.
[link]
|
| |
/(there are $$$millions$$$ in this, I tell you)/ |
|
| |
From backhander compliments? |
|
| |
Silly and arbitrary. I'm not sure I like it - but I do find it interesting that the 99th best restaurant would be trying to be just a tiny bit worse than the 100th best restaurant - being at the beginning of a book is always going to be more profitable than being at the end of another one. The 100th best restaurant would have a fine line to play between being better than the 101st and being worst than the 99th. A tricky game to play methinks... |
|
| |
Or rather it should be top 100++ since + is a binary operation and you need to specify what you are adding. The ++ operator on the other hand will increment by the size of the operand which in this case is 100... |
|
| |
Jim sighs his job here is done... |
|
| |
I imagine the contents of this book be a directory of all the MacDonaldses in the readership area. being as one Mc is like another, they are all tied for 101th place. then come the Wendys all tied for 102th place.,Then the BoogerKings, the Applebees, etc. |
|
| |
"being as one ... is like another"
No friggin way!
Is the point of this idea to shed light on what available good quality restaurants are within striking distance of highly-ranked restaurants? I've noticed that mass market restaurants have sites that are better or worse than I would expect of the franchise.
If the Idea were to be implemented, what is to prevent the 100+ guide to becoming a catalog akin to a top ranked Google™ search page, appertained to by paid subscribers? A company like McIDs, consumed as it is with differentiation issues, will protect its brand by paid advertisement marketing rather than have a meritorious single outlet featured in such a guide. |
|
| |
[reensure] I'm not sure what *issues* you are referring to, but the goal in fast food is to have one on one side of the continent be identical in quality and quantity to another on the opposite side. This rule probably does not apply to international McDonaldses. I have eaten at a Korean Mcs and I think it was dog meat. |
|
| |
I like it. Mostly because usually those
top 100 restaurants will be expensive,
and I'm a broke bastard who wants to
eat out with a low budget. Maybe the
guide should be aimed to fit in a
budget,
really. Say, you have $25 to pay a
dinner
for two. You go to the $20-$30
section, where the restaurants of choice
are described. |
|
| |
mmmm dog meat. With a tangy sauce? |
|
| |
I thought dog was served like horse, that is, with a meaty gravy. |
|
| |
[dentworth] The issues to which I referred were twofold: On the one hand, individual outlets of franchised restaurant chains vary enormously in the quality of their food, service, and "je ne sais quoi" (although I do know what I like) ... but vary little in the menu, true. On the other hand, I see that mass market restaurants have universally adopted an internet-based option to obtain customer feedback, but they haven't been given to post rankings of their franchisees. |
|
| |
Why? Would that create ill-will among franchisees? Is it the case that area markets are saturated with multiple outlets operated by a single individual who wishes privacy to conduct business without corporate interference? Most likely (my assertion is), the corporation wishes to operate at the level of the common interest with only veto power over how local outlets position themselves, its undifferentiated mission as applies to thousands of franchisees who may conduct their business with more or less direct support from the corporate center. |
|
| |
Since I live in an area with no fine dining (other than shipboard) within 15 miles, and limited to few choices under 50 miles distance, my perception of how a 100+ guide would portray my dine-out options is as follows: 100+ high marks by consumers for overall experience, 100++ (see 100+) and rated very enjoyable, 100+++ (see 100++) also very personal, that is, lacks a specific 'theme' but caters to what you suggest. |
|
| |
Franchise chains shouldn't really come in to this at all as a) They're not really restaurants and b) more importantly by definition they are selling a standardised "product" and "dining experience" so it hardly needs a guidebook to describe it. They only vary in the number of rats and cockroaches. |
|
| |
The problem with eschewing franchise chains is that many are among the better places to go, say Capital Grille. Isn't it that most of the patrons are referred or invited, rather than browse their way in? |
|
| |