I've found some gems by looking for the third category.
Given that "near the train" is a good location, that would support this theory.
Mathematically a trivial example is the equation 1=x+y, where 1 represents some cutoff and could be any value. Clearly x and y are inversely correlated.
- Katz's deli in NYC is incredibly famous, in a great location, and actually has kickass pastrami. The trade-off are relatively high prices and lines down the block
- restaurants with exclusive relationships.
- restaurants that make money another way, e.g. gambling.
- family owned restaurants with legacy rent deals.
- restaurants that cater to niche audiences e.g. small ethnicities and religions
(And others, probably)
The grand parent post clearly stated it is the poster's "rule of thumb". By definition they are aware that the rules are [likely] "not mutually exclusive". Starting with "these are not mutually exclusive", is what makes this comment so unnecessary. Don't be proud of having listed exceptions to someone's rule of thumb.
Had you started with, "I like that; these are a few exceptions I've observed to your rules that I find interesting", that would be a productive way to start a conversation.
But starting with "these are not mutually exclusive" makes you seem like an ass for having pointed at an exception to something that by definition has exceptions.
It's right in the posting guidelines [1.]
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
The poster added valuable information, that is interesting and not self-evidently obvious to the average person who doesn't think much about restaurants, that makes the forum more useful to others?
Yeah I'm not a fan but it's orders of magnitude less frustrating than the people that try to take a very lossy rule of thumb with a fat "better safe than sorry" factor baked in and then do mental gymnastics to try and plug all the massive gaps.
Christ this website can be so full of insufferable pedantry. I don't know why people think that such comments are a good contribution.
> "contextualize for a good old-fashioned shitfight about the internet. Hackernews does software they vote on their eggs in Google's ultimate"
I'm unwilling to share that json here, because of the implications.
btw i remembered both of you that mentioned it this week, and got up and pwshed it out.
ADDED: These days, sure, close to Lower East Side and Orchard Street but that sure wasn't primo real estate a few decades ago (including When Harry Met Sally was filmed).
Cost, Convenience, Quality: Pick 2
This isn't that deep either - convenience and quality are 2 things that cost the restaurant money (either via higher rent, or more expensive ingredients).
You can't do all 3 because you'll never make a profit.
You can't do only 1 or you'll never get any customers.
Two is just right for both buyer and seller.
A fair amount, if the number of exceptions are such that the rule of thumb isn't useful.
A broadly accurate guide or principle. If there are enough exceptions that it is not broadly accurate, it's not a good rule of thumb.
> Did you think you were being helpful?
By doing what?
- restaurants that are going to fail but have not done so quite yet
That covers a lot of restaurants. It's a business sector with a lot of churn. Many mediocre establishments hold on for a few years before they close.
Even some slightly fancy restaurants have a corner full of slot machines. They must make a small mint to offset putting off diners.
I know what you are thinking: This guy lives in Nevada. Nope. Illinois.
That last category seems to be growing as well nearby. There are 3 Uzbek restaurants in the neighboring towns. 3! All opened within a year of each other, I think.
1. Good locations are more expensive.
2. People are willing to pay more for better food.
3. Therefore (all else equal), better restaurants earn more revenue.
4. Therefore, better restaurants have a higher willingness-to-pay on rent.
5. Therefore, better restaurants will outbid worse restaurants for good locations.
Sure, there's always exceptions, especially in older cities where the restaurant was established in a great spot a long time ago and is owned by a family. But generally, restaurants have far too low profit margins to remain for long in a top location. And I think all of us know this from experience.
If they know. West Coast bagels have been almost consistently garbage until very, very recently because the people willing to pay up for a great bagel weren't able to pick out those that were freshly boiled. Combine that with the economics of bagels prohibiting boiling and baking to order (hmm...) and you wind up with the necessity of toasting old (but not stale) bagels.
Also, compare any big city to its adjacent areas. Like everyone knows LA has better food than San Bernardino.
Every kebob is a good kebob when you’re a few drinks in.
it's no different than saying people with higher income, overall, rent/buy housing that costs more.
from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culinary_diplomacy#Thailand
This varies strongly region to region (and price level). In America and much of Europe, in most cases, yes. (Exception: tier 1 cities.)
In parts of Asia it varies from being almost rule to being a solid way to avoid great food. Put another way, go where the food-obsessed locals go. If the locals are dining at hotel restaurants, go there. If they're avoiding them for street food, do that.
On a parallel note, crappy little hotel bars are something of a delight to visit, particularly in your home town. You get to meet randos seeing your familiar through fresh eyes and for the first tie, and even if you don't meet anyone interesting, the people watching alone is usually paydirt.
Depends on the stakes too: anniversary dinner or grabbing a coffee in a different part of town?
Also, the lowest scoring outliers were the closest proximity, which I think is noteworthy.
I'd be curious about the article's study being re-run with a dummy variable for predominantly commuter versus tourist train stations.
The way I think about it is this: the restaurant has to pay for the real estate, and that cost must get factored in somehow. Water views aren't cheap. So you can get good food on the water, but you'll be paying for the view.
Conversely, I have one piece of life advice for you: Don't eat seafood in Alice Springs.
In my head I have a category for reliable restaurants to go to when you are planning something with people and you want to make sure to have a consistent, predictable experience and restaurants that are worth waiting for or going at a weird time.
Second rule of thumb: if the milkshakes are good, the food will be good - almost never fails me.
Interior was authentic and nice, but the food turned out to be AWFUL, kebab was burnt to ashes, everything food wise was horrible.
When I complained, the cook came back and apologized, and I saw the cook was White American. Not saying all Americans are bad cooks, but in my experience I would have expected turkish chef to cook turkish food for authentic experience and quality.
The best places are mismatched chairs and Formica tabletops, menus left over from the previous occupant with a page of badly translated new menu pasted inside.
(They’ve also clearly spent a lot on the decor, which, again, is normally not a great sign in a restaurant. And yet somehow it’s very good. Against the natural order of things.)
This is actually good. Its a very basic rule of thumb for selecting wine: the more regionally specific they get on the label, the more likely the wine is good.
For example, if you see "California" or "Chile" on a <$10 bottle, expect mediocrity. But if it says "Napa Valley", it'll be a little better, and if it also mentions a location or vineyard, it'll be a lot better.
My pet theory is that this is because the more specific the label gets, the more direct the reputation hit for a bad product.
For France and Italy, wine regions and sub-regions often have protective status. This makes a wine more expensive vs. a non-protected wine of comparative quality, but the upshot is that if you see a wine under a protective label, you can be sure of a certain baseline of quality.
Luckily, those usually go out of business. Un-luckily, you may be a customer first.
Recommendations still matter and some tourists are around for a week or two. I'm highly likely to be a repeat customer at any place that is good.
In my experience finding a good restaurant in a tourist zone is not hugely more difficult than finding a good restaurant elsewhere. The search is easier as a tourist in many ways because the selection is often a limited set.
In San Carlos de Bariloche (highly touristy) I adored Alto El Fuego and I want to go back just for that. Don't try L'Italiano Trattoria: I wanted a bad experience for a masochistic change and I certainly got it. Please gain some pleasure that you've never been there. There's a massive difference between the tastes of local tourists and international tourists.
we used to go a chinese place and we called it "spicy chicken." everything else on the menu was trash
I'm not saying that holds up, only that it's not clear to me that "good location" = skimping on actually being good.
To go the other extreme, I guess all the best restaurants in the USA are in Wyoming since they arguably have worst locations (low population density = low traffic) so they must have to concentrate on food. Yea, ... no.