If that's really the case Winedude, then stick around and be a contributing member. The objection from regular forumites is to those who post-and-run, using the veil of anonymity the web provides to grind whatever ax-du-jour they have...
Originally posted by wineismylife: Hey Seaquam, add ryanopaz to your list of fly by gumbas.
FWIW, Ryan is a very well respected blogger who has been blogging away on Spanish wines for 4-5 years.
Maybe so but I don't like it one bit when all of these yo-yos come crawling out of the woodwork and sign up just to take a shot at this site or one of it's editors that actively participates here on a regular basis. They're fly by night hit and run artists. Let him stick around for a awhile and contribute something positive to the site. Then I'll ease up on my statements.
Calling me a yo-yo/Gumba really shows that the level of discourse on this forum is tres professional. Name calling what a great way to show that you are better then the rest of us.
I never took a shot at the board as a whole, rather pointed out what I thought was an ignorant statement. Ignorance only breeds more ignorance.
Oh and finally why would I want to stick around and contribute if the first post I put up is answered with Name Calling? That's a great way to make someone want to "stick around".
Originally posted by James Molesworth: If that's really the case Winedude, then stick around and be a contributing member. The objection from regular forumites is to those who post-and-run, using the veil of anonymity the web provides to grind whatever ax-du-jour they have...
Thanks, James. Will do - I can appreciate the frustration that long-timers on any forum would feel about 'hit & run' posts.
Hopefully my 'on-line brand' is transparent enough that anyone can, relatively easily, see the face behind it. I've certainly tried to make it that way.
My point in jumping into the conversation here is not to point out what's already been pointed out; it's to offer one of the perspectives of the wine blogging world (and hopefully its readers!).
WS is a major name brand in the world of wine. I am sure that my readers (like me) have in the past looked to things like the WS Award of Excellence as something that helps them make a decision on whether or not to try a new restaurant, for example. In my view, that gives WS a responsibility to ensure that everything that can reasonably be done to improve the awards process is done.
It's not events like this that make or break credibility; it's responses to events like this that make or break credibility.
Well, Tom's response clearly states that we have to be more vigilant in the future...if people think we're taking the "oh, we've been victimized" approach they're misinterpreting.
We got scammed by a very elaborate, deceitful ruse run by a self-promoting huckster. It's not a pleasant experience for us, and we don't want the hard, honest work of the many restauranteurs who do support the annual guide and appreciate its benefits to be tarnished by it.
We aim to make it better - not only because of this incident, but because we are always trying to improve our magazine...
Originally posted by James Molesworth: Well, Tom's response clearly states that we have to be more vigilant in the future...if people think we're taking the "oh, we've been victimized" approach they're misinterpreting.
We got scammed by a very elaborate, deceitful ruse run by a self-promoting huckster. It's not a pleasant experience for us, and we don't want the hard, honest work of the many restauranteurs who do support the annual guide and appreciate its benefits to be tarnished by it.
We aim to make it better - not only because of this incident, but because we are always trying to improve our magazine...
James, I think that calling the guy a huckster is missing the point (even if it's true).
If being duped is the worst thing that happens to WS, then you're in very good shape indeed.
Politics and perception are the things that can make issues like this get out of hand.
Keeping the public in the loop and letting us know how the process will be changed to make the awards better and more vigilant is (in my opinion) what many wine consumers want to know. That would do more to ensure that consumers continue to trust the WS awards and its brand.
About 10-12 years ago, the Wine Spectator had an issue devoted to San Francisco, in which they gave their recommendations for various restaurants, across a broad range of cuisines, neighborhoods, and price points (R & G lounge, Rubicon, etc.) I found that the recommendations were spot on, and was thoroughly impressed. Same goes for the NYC feature they ran about 8-9 years ago or so; the thing was like the dining bible for about a year and half for me and my friends.
The Restaurant Award issues, on the other hand, have never been as satisfactory as too many times I've gone to a certain Award recipient restaurant and found the wine list to be completely lacking, usually b/c they didn't have many (sometimes most) of the wines on their wine list.
Consequently, other than say the Grand Award winners and the runners-up (or however WS characterizes the top 25-50 restaurants in the issue), I l long ago concluded that the list was more or less useless, and at worst, a marketing ploy abused by restaurateurs who've used their Award as a means of deceptively luring someone such as myself to their underwhelming carte du vin . . .
Personally, I'd rather see WS focus on maybe 25-50 restaurants in each of the US, UK, France, Italy, etc., and do a more thorough reporting on those spots, and devote more space to restaurant recommendations on a city by city basis (and looking seriously at the quality of the wine lists and wine service).
__________________ Ed Bowers Live simply, Laugh often, Wine a lot!!!
This whole incidence could have been circumvented had Wine Spectator decided to call it a "Wine List Award" as opposed to a "Restaurant Award". The award was for the wine list compiled not the restaurant per se.
____________________ An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools. - Hemingway
Originally posted by Maverick: I just read this over at eBob. Was he here? Did I miss his story/reply? Was he booted? Enquiring minds want to know. Thanks in advance.
quote:
Robin Goldstein reared his ugly head over there, and is now defending his "investigative reporting" action. Looks to get nasty over there. Trust WS will lock that thread soon!!!
I am assuming, and you should too, that one of the "one hit wonders" here is Robin Goldstein. And I support WS 100% if they want to ban him for posting here under his real name for the havoc that he's caused.
As I've stated before, this is a prank. As much as he may say he's operating as a journalist, this is not journalism (well maybe yellow journalism, but not too many people know what that means anymore). I would respect him if he admitted it was a prank, but he hasn't. And as other's have stated, it's just a bit of theatre to promote his book.
"When I drink, I think; and when I think, I drink." Francois Rabelais
www.tanglenet.com
TN posted on Cellartracker
Posts: 3052 | Location: Oakland, CA | Registered: May 21, 2002
Just curious what others think about this: Does it matter if this was a scam or not?
The perception is out there now that the awards might have credibility issues. So WS needs to respond on what they will be doing about this, regardless of whether or not it was a scam that caused the attention.
Originally posted by 1WineDude: Keeping the public in the loop and letting us know how the process will be changed to make the awards better and more vigilant is (in my opinion) what many wine consumers want to know. That would do more to ensure that consumers continue to trust the WS awards and its brand.
Cheers, -Joe
Yes, but forgive us if we don't provide a minute-by-minute update of what we're doing. By wrecking his bit of havoc, Goldstein forces us to put in additional safeguards, etc, that we might not be willing to divulge to the public out of fear of their being manipulated or circumvented again...but trust that the issue is being dealt with internally.
Originally posted by 1WineDude: Keeping the public in the loop and letting us know how the process will be changed to make the awards better and more vigilant is (in my opinion) what many wine consumers want to know. That would do more to ensure that consumers continue to trust the WS awards and its brand.
Cheers, -Joe
Yes, but forgive us if we don't provide a minute-by-minute update of what we're doing. By wrecking his bit of havoc, Goldstein forces us to put in additional safeguards, etc, that we might not be willing to divulge to the public out of fear of their being manipulated or circumvented again...but trust that the issue is being dealt with internally.
Makes total sense to me.
In looking further into this, I am getting more and more convinced that:
1) Goldstein was way too shadowy in his presentation of this "study"
2) The study being a bit of a farce is not relevant now - the publicity and perception are "in the wild." WS will eventually need to provide those details on how they will improve their awards system in order to answer that perception. Of course, this might not be fair to WS, but it is what it is. Glad to hear it's in the works.
Originally posted by ryanopaz: Calling me a yo-yo/Gumba really shows that the level of discourse on this forum is tres professional. Name calling what a great way to show that you are better then the rest of us.
I never took a shot at the board as a whole, rather pointed out what I thought was an ignorant statement. Ignorance only breeds more ignorance.
Oh and finally why would I want to stick around and contribute if the first post I put up is answered with Name Calling? That's a great way to make someone want to "stick around".
ryan, stick around and contribute to this forum. I'm more than happy to apologize for calling you a gumba and yo-yo if you do so.
Joe ----- Wine is like potato chips around me...if it's open, it's gone.
Come visit me sometime at http://www.winexiles.com/
Just want to clarify something. You referenced "those that ran the study" -- there is currently no published "study," in any scholarly sense of the term, no analysis of the program, just a fraudulent entry. Goldstein presented the information about that fake entry at the same time he presented an unrelated study at the wine economist's conference. We have yet to see the academic research he says he's working on.
Also the next Restaurant Awards entries aren't submitted until Jan. 2009, and the recipients aren't published until next summer, so we have time to develop and implement solid ideas for improvements to the program instead of just providing a knee-jerk reaction a couple days after discovering the fraud.
Dana Nigro, Managing editor, WineSpectator.com
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dana Nigro,
Posts: 13 | Location: New York | Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Osteria L’Intrepido’s so-called “reserve list” appears in its entirety below (with scores and some excerpts from the Wine Spectator reviews of those wines added here):
I rossi italiani “riserva” della nostra cantina
AMARONE CLASSICO 1998 (Veneto) Tedeschi 80,00 €
Wine Spectator rating: 65 points. “…Not clean. Stale black licorice…”
Wine Spectator rating: 67 points. “…Smells barnyardy and tastes decayed. Not what you’d hope for…”
BRUNELLO DI MONTALCINO 1993 (Toscana) Tenuta Caparzo 180,00 €
Wine Spectator rating: 80 points. “…A bit lacking in concentration, but with pretty, round tannins and a soft finish…”
BRUNELLO DI MONTALCINO RISERVA 1995 (Toscana) Tenuta Caparzo 135,00 €
Wine Spectator rating: 81 points. “…The palate is light-bodied with a slightly diluted finish. Light for the vintage. Rather disappointing for this producer…”
Wine Spectator rating: 58 points. “Something wrong here. Of four samples provided, two were dark in color, but tasted metallic and odd…”
SASSICAIA 1976 (Toscana) Tenuta San Guido 250,00 €
Wine Spectator rating: 65 points. “…Even Sassicaia could not apparently escape the wet weather of this memorably bad vintage in Tuscany. It lacks harmony, having oxidized…”
SASSICAIA 1980 (Toscana) Tenuta San Guido 280,00 €
Wine Spectator rating: 77 points. “…Light, watery and diluted vanilla and milk chocolate character…”
SASSICAIA 1995 (Toscana) Tenuta San Guido 300,00 €
Wine Spectator rating: 90 points. “…Rich in currant, blackberry, dried herbs and tanned leather…”
__________________ Ed Bowers Live simply, Laugh often, Wine a lot!!!
I wanted to thank everyone who has taken the time over the past couple of days to post thoughtful comments on restaurants they have visited in our Restaurant Search reader ratings and comments section. We see that some of you have methodically commented on a number of restaurants in your immediate area. We certainly hope more of you will take the time to add feedback that will be helpful to us and other readers, or to send feedback to our Restaurant Awards e-mail (restaurantawards [at] mshanken [dot] com) not just now but throughout the year.
Dana Nigro, Managing editor, WineSpectator.com
Posts: 13 | Location: New York | Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Originally posted by Dana Nigro: I wanted to thank everyone who has taken the time over the past couple of days to post thoughtful comments on restaurants they have visited in our Restaurant Search reader ratings and comments section. We see that some of you have methodically commented on a number of restaurants in your immediate area. We certainly hope more of you will take the time to add feedback that will be helpful to us and other readers, or to send feedback to our Restaurant Awards e-mail (restaurantawards [at] mshanken [dot] com) not just now but throughout the year.
Dana Nigro, Managing editor, WineSpectator.com
Thanks for the compiment.
The resturant search appears to only list award winners. Can it be expanded to include others in area, that may be better than those listed?
__________________ Ed Bowers Live simply, Laugh often, Wine a lot!!!
Personally, I think the blogger's actions qualify more as a silly self-serving prank than journalism but he did publicize the potential abuse of the awards program as designed. This abuse is possible, not just by a guy who takes the time to create an entire work of fiction, but more so by real restaurants who simply embellish their wine lists to make up for weaknesses in the actual inventory.
If one reads the steps for application and criteria for awards, it becomes clear that, in effect, it is a specialized writing (or copying/pasting) and print design contest, not a wine program contest.
WS assumption that all the information they receive is true and well executed in the real world leaves them open to fraud. The realization that such abuse is possible discourages deserving restaurants from participating and causes consumers "in the know" to view the award list with a rather skeptical eye.
I don't know if WS wants to improve this awards program, but here are my suggestions:
1. Lower the number of awards and/or award them less often. It's too many for any organization to check annually.
2. Use the current criteria to wean down to a list of quarterfinalists. From quarterfinalist on, they have to be checked.
3. Publish that list of quarterfinalists and have your subscribers send feedback, vote, etc. This will discourage fraud as they will probably be outed publically by the readers. Build a list of semifinalists from these results.
4. WS editorial staff visits the semifinalists and awards the grand awards. I think such a contest would both legitimize the award and build excitement among your readership.
5. Alternatively join with another publication (either new media or old) to use their resources and expertise in the process and help them with their evaluation. It would seem that since food and wine go together and menus and wine lists go together that joint awards or evaluations by Wine Spectator and Michelin, Zagats, etc would be of real value.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Randy Sloan,
----------------------- Randy Sloan, Owner / Vintner / Filler of Fax Paper Match Vineyards http://www.MatchVineyards.com
Posts: 1559 | Location: Napa Valley and East Bay | Registered: Oct 23, 2001
