Quite unexpectedly, a recent blog review posted on this site has opened a vigorous to-and-fro. While important issues were raised, much of the initial conversation was based on a mis-understanding of how Rossouw’s Restaurants works. As stated in the introduction above, the website that you are reading complements the printed Rossouw’s guide. For both the printed guide and all reviews here, restaurant visits are conducted anonymously; and all meals are paid for. As for this website, and its blogs, all content is written by myself, the editor, and opinions expressed are my own. If this is ever not the case it will be clearly noted.
The printed guide in book form encompasses research from over South Africa and more than 500 restaurants per year, and here a team of inspectors is utilised. These reviewers all follow the same guidelines to strive for independent and informative assessments. The use of a team of selected reviewers is in line with practise the world over. It would be a physical impossibility for one person, as editor, to visit every restaurant, every year. My inspectors also add the value of giving a second and sometimes third opinion on a restaurant to balance and improve reviews. This approach has always been clearly explained in the printed guide – which preceded the website and its blog by four years.
Much was recently raised over the value and role of the blogosphere in reviewing restaurants, and this debate is important. These are some of my thoughts:
1. It is my opinion that blog reviews and/or comments should carry the person’s real name (for responsibility) and that reasons (i.e. facts or examples) should be given to back up all opinions expressed. In this way, other readers – and indeed the restaurateur – can see how conclusions are reached and people can in turn debate issues constructively.
2. Reviews should also be paid for by the reviewer and not be based on a “freebie” or an invitation. Reviews written from an experience that was a “soft opening” or any hosted event should be introduced as such, so that the reader realises this may not be a typical experience.
3. It is also true that restaurants should ideally not be “reviewed” within days of opening – what the ideal post-opening ”grace” period is is a matter for discussion; but on the other hand a restaurant that is open and taking your real money is immediately accountable. Having said that, early reviews can again explain to the reader that they are such, and some latitude should be allowed for.
4. The web is a great place to read all kinds of opinions – and this is also its danger – you don’t always know whose opinion it is or much about the person making it. A distinction should be drawn between professional restaurant reviews (i.e. where people make a living from it) and those that are written by non-professionals. Simply because there is more invested when you owe your livelihood to it. One could (hopefully should) also expect a higher level of expertise and experience as well as more considered engagement.
5. It’s self-evident, but worth noting again, that a blog review is bound to a certain point in time. That is why a post on this blog is never the “last word” on a restaurant but an impression of its offering at this point in time. A printed review in a yearly guide is an impression that means to capture data over a longer period and is also based on multiple visits, over the course of many years – for restaurants, consistency and longevity are true signs of both quality, value and (therefore) success.
Restaurant reviewing and the blogosphere
Quite unexpectedly, a recent blog review posted on this site has opened a vigorous to-and-fro. While important issues were raised, much of the initial conversation was based on a mis-understanding of how Rossouw’s Restaurants works. As stated in the introduction above, the website that you are reading complements the printed Rossouw’s guide. For both the printed guide and all reviews here, restaurant visits are conducted anonymously; and all meals are paid for. As for this website, and its blogs, all content is written by myself, the editor, and opinions expressed are my own. If this is ever not the case it will be clearly noted.
The printed guide in book form encompasses research from over South Africa and more than 500 restaurants per year, and here a team of inspectors is utilised. These reviewers all follow the same guidelines to strive for independent and informative assessments. The use of a team of selected reviewers is in line with practise the world over. It would be a physical impossibility for one person, as editor, to visit every restaurant, every year. My inspectors also add the value of giving a second and sometimes third opinion on a restaurant to balance and improve reviews. This approach has always been clearly explained in the printed guide – which preceded the website and its blog by four years.
Much was recently raised over the value and role of the blogosphere in reviewing restaurants, and this debate is important. These are some of my thoughts:
1. It is my opinion that blog reviews and/or comments should carry the person’s real name (for responsibility) and that reasons (i.e. facts or examples) should be given to back up all opinions expressed. In this way, other readers – and indeed the restaurateur – can see how conclusions are reached and people can in turn debate issues constructively.
2. Reviews should also be paid for by the reviewer and not be based on a “freebie” or an invitation. Reviews written from an experience that was a “soft opening” or any hosted event should be introduced as such, so that the reader realises this may not be a typical experience.
3. It is also true that restaurants should ideally not be “reviewed” within days of opening – what the ideal post-opening ”grace” period is is a matter for discussion; but on the other hand a restaurant that is open and taking your real money is immediately accountable. Having said that, early reviews can again explain to the reader that they are such, and some latitude should be allowed for.
4. The web is a great place to read all kinds of opinions – and this is also its danger – you don’t always know whose opinion it is or much about the person making it. A distinction should be drawn between professional restaurant reviews (i.e. where people make a living from it) and those that are written by non-professionals. Simply because there is more invested when you owe your livelihood to it. One could (hopefully should) also expect a higher level of expertise and experience as well as more considered engagement.
5. It’s self-evident, but worth noting again, that a blog review is bound to a certain point in time. That is why a post on this blog is never the “last word” on a restaurant but an impression of its offering at this point in time. A printed review in a yearly guide is an impression that means to capture data over a longer period and is also based on multiple visits, over the course of many years – for restaurants, consistency and longevity are true signs of both quality, value and (therefore) success.