I try and get the paper on a Wednesday to suss out good local restaurants. However, has anyone else noticed that he seems to give everywhere an overall score of 4 out of 5. Even the breakdown of ratings seldom vary.

Are the ratings just nonsense? Does he get free grub on the proviso that the eaterie gets a good write-up?

I'm sure he'll be along to tell you soon

Martyn Dawes pays his way and writes honestly, but it is only an opinion and you may disagree ! Thats journalism. The Telegraph also write up local restaurant reviews, Leslie Draper ( who also pays her way ) is the main columnist. I have been subject to a visit from both recently and find the reviews helpful and constructive. There are many online restaurant sites which allow anyone to post a review subject to certain legal criteria so perhaps an oppurtunity beckons

I agree with Bluewater Bob.

Martin Dawes' review (along with anyone else's) is simply an opinion.

I personally wouldn't base a decision whether or not to visit a restaurant based on what he had written. I don't think reviews are that helpful simply because our opinions vary so much.
Best to go along and decide for ourselves.

Yeah, fair points, but I understood that his was the opinion of an `expert` and so I`d expect to be able to get advice from his writing.

Bob - what he said in the review on Wednesday didn`t really seem to tally with the ratings.

I`ve now decided to not pay much heed to the scores but rather to read the review closely and look between the lines.

So you trust a bloke who writes for a paper to tell you where to eat?

I heard a journalist on the radio last week who does restaurant reviews. He explained that journalists do not usually put in reviews for awful resteraunts because it is counterproductive. If they go to one and it is awful they do not file a review.

Because
1 ) Nobody wants to read about bad restaurants, they would just try somewhere else the next day and put in the better place instead as their weekly review, a bad review is a waste of precious column inches
2 ) If they get bad food or service in an establishment it could be a one off bad day and the letters pages will fill up with people complaining about the review being too harsh.
3 ) If they put in a bad word for a restaurant it could ruin the business, and they can be sued for defamation.

Oh well. I`m partly proved wrong in the marks he`s given today! :o

I try and get the paper on a Wednesday to suss out good local restaurants. However, has anyone else noticed that he seems to give everywhere an overall score of 4 out of 5. Even the breakdown of ratings seldom vary.

Are the ratings just nonsense? Does he get free grub on the proviso that the eaterie gets a good write-up?

I'm a bit slow here, aren't I?
I shall ignore the rather ignorant remarks later on but out of curiosity I have just checked the last 12 reviews and see I have given (for food) five three stars, six four stars and one five star ratings, so you're wrong there my boy. And of those 12 reviews only five have had the same marks in all four categories (food, atmosphere, service and overall value). We can take it one and two stars are for the really bad.

On the other points: I pay my own way and I say what I think. Tempting though it might be to imagine me in league with the restaurants, I ain't.
And don't include in with that reviewer you heard on the radio saying we only give good reviews because that's what people want to read. The most interesting reviews are where the reviewer has had a bad time and says so.
I've got my own favourite national reviewers for restaurants and hotels and it makes my day when I read they've had a bad meal. It's much more entertaining.
Oh and people have threatened to sue me but they haven't done so yet. Ordered me out of restaurants, though, but that's another story.

I believe Martin reviewed Taybarns, and was spot on, as I ate there last Sunday.He said the food was good value for money, but the loud music spoiled it. Which I found to be true. This is not word for word, but near enough.

I'm a bit slow here, aren't I?
I shall ignore the rather ignorant remarks later on but out of curiosity I have just checked the last 12 reviews and see I have given (for food) five three stars, six four stars and one five star ratings, so you're wrong there my boy. And of those 12 reviews only five have had the same marks in all four categories (food, atmosphere, service and overall value). We can take it one and two stars are for the really bad.

On the other points: I pay my own way and I say what I think. Tempting though it might be to imagine me in league with the restaurants, I ain't.
And don't include in with that reviewer you heard on the radio saying we only give good reviews because that's what people want to read. The most interesting reviews are where the reviewer has had a bad time and says so.
I've got my own favourite national reviewers for restaurants and hotels and it makes my day when I read they've had a bad meal. It's much more entertaining.



Oh and people have threatened to sue me but they haven't done so yet. Ordered me out of restaurants, though, but that's another story.

Several paragraphs and you did not use the word 'upmarket' once. That must be a record for you, my boy.

Its definitely more interesting when the reviewer hates the place - its probably the only reason for reading A A Gill's self-indulgent twaddle (although Terry Durack seems to have a degree of grace in his disdain). However, I think that perhaps in a local paper, that has the local economy at heart, the kind of destruction that some of the nationals are capable of really wouldn't be appropriate.

I don't know, but perhaps when a paper has spent weeks talking about the regeneration of xxxx area, its sort of counter-intuitive to completely trash xxxx area's first restaurant. Nevertheless I do think that the Star pours some scorn where it might be due, albeit very minimal. Probably not an easy route to tread

I generally find if you are basing your choice of restaurant, hotel or whatever on reviews, you need to get a feel for how that writer or site works. For example TripAdvisor, with user reviews for hotels, you filter out the ones which are just complaints rather than constructive reviews. With restaurant reviewers, you understand their style and make your decision accordingly.

A good recent example is reviews of the new look Wig & Pen. The Metro gave it a rave review, loving the decor and food, Martin Dawes thought the cooking was good but overpriced. So both reviewers liked the food, so you make the decision on whether you are worried how big the bill will be, if not then you go and know you will enjoy the food. If you are a bit more price concious, you may decide to go elsewhere.

Best food review I ever read was Michael Winner having a bad meal, you could almost see him spluttering and demanding bigger portions.

I'm a bit slow here, aren't I?
I shall ignore the rather ignorant remarks later on but out of curiosity I have just checked the last 12 reviews and see I have given (for food) five three stars, six four stars and one five star ratings, so you're wrong there my boy. And of those 12 reviews only five have had the same marks in all four categories (food, atmosphere, service and overall value). We can take it one and two stars are for the really bad.

.

Thanks for replying my boy. All the 4`s again last night eh . . . :rolleyes:

But seriously I`ve realised that the marks are not too important but I do take heed of the written appraisals. I`d be quite interested in seeing you re-visit some places that you`ve done in the past to see if they`re still up-to-scratch, but then I guess that there are always new eateries popping up to keep you busy. Cheers!

I generally find if you are basing your choice of restaurant, hotel or whatever on reviews, you need to get a feel for how that writer or site works. For example TripAdvisor, with user reviews for hotels, you filter out the ones which are just complaints rather than constructive reviews. With restaurant reviewers, you understand their style and make your decision accordingly.

A good recent example is reviews of the new look Wig & Pen. The Metro gave it a rave review, loving the decor and food, Martin Dawes thought the cooking was good but overpriced. So both reviewers liked the food, so you make the decision on whether you are worried how big the bill will be, if not then you go and know you will enjoy the food. If you are a bit more price concious, you may decide to go elsewhere.

Good example here -

We had sardines at the Wig and Pen for 'tapas' and were served one solitary sardine on a plate.

My husband is from Spain (Andalucia - ACTUAL area of tapas) and also a qualified chef so knows a thing or two about 'tapas' and authenticity of them. He told me there is no way you would be served with one sardine on a plate in Spain as a tapa and it was way overpriced.

We gave our polite and constructive feedback to the staff there but at the end of the day we believe people in the UK are very easily impressed by mediteranean food and someone else would probably go along and be served with that same solitary sardine on a plate and then rave about it.

Reviews are definitely a personal thing but at the end of the day it comes down to the individual and the only 'expert' in my opinion is oneself when it comes to deciding what is a good or bad meal/price/venue etc. Sorry Martin Dawes, but we don't need you to do this for us.

Did anyone see Jay Rainer's review of what was then Thyme, a few years ago? He mentioned the food, but devoted most of his review to metrocentric sneering about Sheffield. I haven't taken any of his reviews seriously since then.

I've gone to restaurants in Sheffield I haven't tried before on the strength of Martin Dawes' reviews once or twice, and I've found him a good guide. (We must like the same kind of food.)

I read a review once where he spent the majority of the review talking about a couple who were sitting on the next table and how he thought they were having an affair??
I think its time he packed it in and let someone who knows what there talking about have a go

I look forward to Martin Dawes reviews of the general public every week .. he makes me laugh .. doesnt he get all his meals paid for him? SO hes bound not to give a bad review :-)

what are you talking about "no one likes to read a bad review" I love them as they make for an interesting read, as interesting as the good reviews tbh as I'm not going to visit them as they're never anywhere near me good or not I'm just reading it to hear about the food and if it is jay rayner reviewing then I don't care what he thinks about the place because hes a genius and his reviews make for a very fun read indeed

just out of interest does anyone know if he has reviewed the damhouse??? as with all the hoo ha on here it would be nice to have an independent review

I look forward to Martin Dawes reviews of the general public every week .. he makes me laugh .. doesnt he get all his meals paid for him? SO hes bound not to give a bad review :-)

He books under an assumed name and pays for the meal himself, I believe he claims it back from the newspaper. I have heard him express disappointment if he is recognised as he feels that he mayl be treated differently and won't be able to give a balanced review. He does take it very seriously.

I once read a food review (not Martin Dawes) in the Daily Mail, which gave a glowing report of the food in a Derbyshire pub. After eating there I found the food to be unexciting and very overpriced.:roll:

Good example here -

We had sardines at the Wig and Pen for 'tapas' and were served one solitary sardine on a plate.

My husband is from Spain (Andalucia - ACTUAL area of tapas) and also a qualified chef so knows a thing or two about 'tapas' and authenticity of them. He told me there is no way you would be served with one sardine on a plate in Spain as a tapa and it was way overpriced.

We gave our polite and constructive feedback to the staff there but at the end of the day we believe people in the UK are very easily impressed by mediteranean food and someone else would probably go along and be served with that same solitary sardine on a plate and then rave about it.

Reviews are definitely a personal thing but at the end of the day it comes down to the individual and the only 'expert' in my opinion is oneself when it comes to deciding what is a good or bad meal/price/venue etc. Sorry Martin Dawes, but we don't need you to do this for us.
Went to The Wig and Pen recently and was really impressed by the decor/ ambience and twiddlysticks, but the portions were amazingly stingy and overpriced. My starter was artistically presented, but ridiculously minute for the money I was paying...And this is coming from a bird with a pretty small appetite! Otherwise, a lovely pub.