Hacker News Reader

>> But that may lead to unfairly low ratings for the restaurant.

> If (say) 30% of the restaurant's patrons choose to get the food via food delivery, why shouldn't those folks' ratings of the food be factored into the restaurant's rating?

If the restaurant has chosen to focus on dine in service because that generates the much of their revenue (alcohol sales, desserts, etc.), it would be a shame if their ratings were damaged by delivery customers. People check ratings/reviews before dining out, so having a bunch of bad reviews due to unwanted delivery could really affect dine in traffic as well. It's not fair to expect the restaurant to cater to these delivery customers when they not actually chosen to run a delivery service.

If the food doesn't travel well, maybe don't offer it for take-out? I'm just as likely to ding a restaurant with a bad review if I pick up food and don't like it as if GrubHub delivers it and I don't like it.

It's not so much as it doesn't travel well, it's that the delivery driver doesn't deliver it well. I've waited over an hour for delivery food before. Actually, 45 mins to over an hour is typical no matter the service I use, so I've stopped using it. The model is that the food sits out and gets cold because the delivery driver doesn't get there in time.

Instead, I order takeout. I call the restaurant directly, with their actual number and not some phishing line from a delivery service, and place an order. I immediately leave, and travel the 5-15 mins to the restaurant. By the time I arrive, the food had been finished just moments before, and I travel back home and enjoy my piping hot food. All told the process takes me half the time or less and the food is in perfect condition.

> the delivery driver doesn't deliver it well. I've waited over an hour for delivery food before.

That's the cost of delivery. You can pay to cover the cost of fast deliver with short wait times and get hot food, or you can pay a lesser amount on a gamble that it ends in a long wait and cold food, or you can pay with your time and do it yourself. The balance has never been in favor of the general availability of delivery (with the exception of maybe places like NYC). It's surprising that it's popular at all, really.

This seems like a problem that the review companies are responsible for—coalescing reviews into a single, no-context scalar—moreso than it is the intermediaries' fault.

The original comment stands. If a substantial portion of people are ordering takeout from intermediaries, it's reasonable that when one of those customers checks the reviews, they contain relevant info from others who've ordered the same way and shared their thoughts. Getting in a huff because of that is akin to trying to silence people talking about you because you don't like what those people are saying and/or how other people are responding to it.

If review sites are unfairly mixing irrelevant info (presenting takeout experience using intermediaries to customers who are looking exclusively to dine in), then the ire should be aimed at those sites and, ultimately, the dine-in customers who let irrelevant info dissuade them from going through with their order.

GrubHub is a review company though. Part of their supposed value proposition is that they act as a marketing platform, and the restaurant reviews are a large part of this.

You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting things, including context. GrubHub is a food delivery company.

I'd be ok with it as long as the delivery platform makes it clear that you can order food but the restaurant isn't a participant in the platform, so the experience may not be optimized.

I was recently lamenting that I haven't had some favorite items from Trader Joe's in a while, because I've been using grocery delivery during the pandemic and TJ's refuses to partner with Instacart or provide their own delivery. I then came across Dumpling, a sort-of Instacart competitor where you connect with an individual who does the shopping/delivery for you, but they aren't limited to "officially supported" stores. I have no problem with this, and neither should Trader Joe's. It's simply an individual buying food from them and dropping it off somewhere.

Overriding the restaurant's contact info is sketchy. The food may not travel well, but some restaurants refuse to do takeout (either entirely or for certain dishes). But the basic act of paying a service to pick up something on your behalf isn't problematic to me. The restaurant shouldn't care if I pick up my order, or my wife picks up my order, or GrubHub picks up my order.

> why shouldn't those folks' ratings of the food be factored into the restaurant's rating?

Because a lot of people are not capable of differentiating between product and delivery, and poor delivery (which they have no control over in this case) shouldn't result in low ratings. Have you ever looked at Amazon reviews? A good chunk of them seems to purely give their stars based on delivery.

> If folks want to pay someone (Grubhub) to go pick up food for them, why should the restaurants be allowed to say no?

I agree, but GrubHub was marketing as if they were the restaurant. If it was clearly marked as "grub hub pickup for third-party restaurants" people would be more aware that GrubHub is responsible for choosing to deliver a restaurant that isn't interested in partnering to allow delivery.

I think the main problem is grubhub don't make it clear that this isn't "officially supported". Imagine someone set up a website claiming to sell your services, without making it obvious they have nothing to do with you, then after accepting jobs would ask you to do them (ok, this comparision doesn't quite work, but I think it gets the basic idea).

Image is very important for restaurants. If a customer has a bad experience, even if it's because of a third party driver they might not order there again. Many restaurants have their own driver, competing with grubhub hurts not just the driver, but the restaurant because they make extra money on deliveries.

I think one of the big issues is that if this is done honestly, telling the customer that this is what's happening (and the restaurant), that's ok. But both the customer and the restaurant were misled into this transaction.

But perhaps that would have led to a much lower CR on the site. Who knows.

IMO I agree that the real problem is the last one. GrubHub has a history of this, basically co-opting restaurants brands for their own benefit.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/29/21113876/grubhub-seamless...

Also they then use SEO to get their own phone numbers and website higher than the actual restaurant's number/site, basically guaranteeing a cut of any phone/website order, even if the customer doesn't want to go through Grubhub.

Why should issues with a third-party delivery company affect the reputation of the restaurant itself? What you say on that point would apply if it were the restaurant’s in-house delivery service.

How are you certain that the food you are getting is from the establishment you ordered it from? Why can't I run a shadow kitchen pose as your restaurant and steal your business?

This is a strawman unless I missed where it's being specifically claimed. Obviously posing as the restaurant and serving your own product is fraud.

Does the fraud begin when you serve different food, or does it begin when you represent yourself as the restaurant without their consent? Everyone would agree passing off different food is fraud. Using a different number and marketing yourself as jdmichael's friendly delivery service is not fraud, since the customer knows they are not working directly with the restaurant. Using a different number and marketing yourself as the restaurant IMO is fraudulent.

I think everyone is in agreement regarding the information misdirection stuff being unethical at best and certainly potentially fraudulent. But simply listing restaurants and offering to deliver food from them is not that.

> This is a strawman unless I missed where it's being specifically claimed. Obviously posing as the restaurant and serving your own product is fraud.

Not exactly the same thing, but nearly as problematic:

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/seamless-restaurant-gr...

https://www.restaurantdive.com/news/why-ghost-restaurants-ar...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-24/uber-s-se...

https://mix1065baltimore.radio.com/blogs/kramer-jess/warning...

> > Restaurants may not be able to handle the additional load placed on them by these services.

> I empathize with this one and don't really have a rebuttal.

Isn’t that classic supply and demand situation? Raise prices to drop demand until load drops to acceptable levels. More money for the restaurant as well as acceptable workload for the restaurant staff.