quote:

Originally posted by James Molesworth:
To Florida Wino and others who say we're not responding re: the process involved...

I'm sorry I don't get it - we've listed the judging criteria and explained how we go about things. The magazine article which accompanies the listing clearly states the numbers on who got rejected, etc. The website here provides all the pertinent info on the program...

What am I missing here?

The point you are missing is:
1] you want feedback re the resturants,
2] you force us to pay a fee annually for access to the web site to post the comments.
3] In short, you are not too interested in these comments then.

I get better reviews for resturants etc. from WS dining threads & Squires Food threads, than I do with WS Awards [ads].

I am a reviwer for Zagata guides. I do not have to pay for this priveledge. I even get free guides for those polls that a participate in.

Likewise for $ 50 annually for the WS mag, I cannot post a comment re a resturant that is bad?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FL Wino Spouse,

quote:

Originally posted by Seaquam:
Tannat Madiran
Member
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 20, 2008


squandra
Member
Posts: 1 | Registered: Aug 21, 2008


michaelnumberone
Member
Posts: 1 | Registered: Aug 21,


I was thinking of registering under another monicker last night so that I could tell the WS staff just how poopy they must be, but damned if there wasn't a lineup at the registration desk. Then I realized that there's still almost a full moon and that the lineup wasn't going to get any shorter, so I gave up and decided to start up a fake online university instead.

I'm thinking Costlow Online Diploma College of Milan might be an attractive institutional name, no?

LMAO again. Keep them coming good buddy. Add MartinBriley to your list as well. Another gumba.

Florida Wino: The Forums here are free - start a thread re: Café Chardonnay and there you go.

Yes, the comments section on our restaurant db is subscriber only (though the annual subscription is not $99). The idea behind that was to keep anonymous posters from slamming restaurants unfairly - it's a real name board as with our editor's blogs, and thus is a different registration/subscription. We feel that if you want to critique something, you should have the courage of your convictions to put your name to it...

quote:

Originally posted by James Molesworth:
To Florida Wino and others who say we're not responding re: the process involved...

I'm sorry I don't get it - we've listed the judging criteria and explained how we go about things. The magazine article which accompanies the listing clearly states the numbers on who got rejected, etc. The website here provides all the pertinent info on the program...

What am I missing here?

James,

Most people think that the award process consists solely of a cursory read of the submitted wine list. That's it.

I think WS could really help itself with a thorough answer, such as this (hypothetical) one:

1. Wine lists submitted for consideration in our awards program are given to our awards panel.
2. The awards panel consists of ___ number of people.
3. The panel members qualifications are ________________.
4. The panel reviews each submitted wine list for accuracy, number of selections, etc.
5. A panel member compares the submitted wine list to the actual one on the applicant's web site. Any material differences result in a telephone call to the applicant. Non response by the applicant usually results in the application being rejected.
6. A panel member compares the submitted menu to the submitted wine list to provide assurance the wine list pairs with the food.
7. A panel member calls the restaurant to confirm all the data submitted is accurate before it is published. Non response from the applicant will cause the wine list to be rejected.
8. A panel member goes a Google search to find additional relevant information about the applicant's wine program. Substantial negative information is considered when evaluating the wine list for an award.
9. The whole evaluation process, in general takes about ______________ minutes (hours) for each wine list.
10. other

I think you get my point.

I want to make it clear that I want to see the WS Awards be the best they can be. That's why I wrote to you in the first place and offered constructive comments for positive changes to the program, not simply complaints.

Thanks,

Tom

quote:

Originally posted by Florida Wino:

The point you are missing is:
1] you want feedback re the resturants,
2] you force us to pay $ 99 a year for access to the web site to post the comments.
3] In short, you are not too interested in these comments then.

I'm missing the complaint... How does "forcing you" to pay 99$/yr for access to the website equate to not caring about feedback?

Have you've seen some of the reviews/feedback out there? "Yuck", "I didn't like the place because they didn't give us free dessert".

1) The 99$ gives you alot more other features then just commenting on restaurants.
2) It's good to screen out your reviewers to people you know who actually read your magazines.
3) It's 99$ / YEAR ... A bottle of yellow tail reserve per month.
4) You could always just spend 46 cents and mail a letter to the editor describing displeasure about an award restaurant.
5) And James M has stated that they will try and take a look at a restaurant if complaints have been raised.

quote:

Originally posted by irwin:
Ne Kulturny:
Is it fair to blame the victim for the criminal's action? Do you blame women who are raped by evil guys because they wear alluring clothing, or do you blame banks for being robbed because they keep money in their facilities.

If a person is dishonest, and thereby injures an honest person, so far as I can tell, the bad guy is the dishonest person, not the victim.

Lets extend your bank analogy. Lets say said bank keeps all of said money in an unsecured back room with no security cameras (they don't purport to have any security); it also don't bother to do employee security checks on any of its 50 employees all of whom have keys to the back room (which is usually unlocked anyway because staff lose keys all the time), BUT each employee is required to sign a note saying they're honest AND the bank manager did Google each of their names verify that they've never done anything bad before.

And the bank gets robbed (duh!) and you have money in there. Do you fault the honest bank or the dishonest robber? Or both?

quote:

Originally posted by Stevey:

quote:

Originally posted by irwin:
Ne Kulturny:
Is it fair to blame the victim for the criminal's action? Do you blame women who are raped by evil guys because they wear alluring clothing, or do you blame banks for being robbed because they keep money in their facilities.

If a person is dishonest, and thereby injures an honest person, so far as I can tell, the bad guy is the dishonest person, not the victim.

Lets extend your bank analogy. Lets say said bank keeps all of said money in an unsecured back room with no security cameras (they don't purport to have any security); it also don't bother to do employee security checks on any of its 50 employees all of whom have keys to the back room (which is usually unlocked anyway because staff lose keys all the time), BUT each employee is required to sign a note saying they're honest AND the bank manager did Google each of their names verify that they've never done anything bad before.

And the bank gets robbed (duh!) and you have money in there. Do you fault the honest bank or the dishonest robber? Or both?

I'd look to FDIC and ask them to refund me the money i lost..

otherwise, if I had financial interests in the bank, I'd do my own research on top of what the bank might have told me =)

To Florida Wino's point:
I don't want the restuarant comments feature to be polluted by spammers, hacks and frauds. So making this a feature unique to paid members is a wise choice. This entire thread was caused by the simple efforts of a fraud. There is no telling how much more fraud there would be if every restuarant owner or his/her brother-in-law could spam the comments section. The annual fee is not perfect. But it does serve as some sort of gatekeeper.

As to Mr. Molesworth's point on "what he is missing":
It's simple. You have made no mystery of the fact that the basic award is based soley on the quality of the list. But what you are missing is that the award is based on the list submitted to you, and not necessarily the actual list. You state in your original post that this was the first time that WS has been scammed. Without any actual proof (other than going to award winning restaurants and leaving, shaking my head in disgust), I would venture to guess that the lists your staff reviews are very often fiction compared to what the restaurant routinely serves. The benefit to these restaurants of winning an award far outweighs the slim chance that they will be caught given that you state in black and white that they will not be personally visited. This entire episode proves that the system of reviewing lists submitted in the mail is flawed. I don't see how you could miss that point.

It is oddly ironic that the cover story of your August issue dealt specifically with the fact that wine lovers are very dissatisfied with wine service. Emphasis on SERVICE. Yet the vast majority of your awards are given out without any consideration for service whatsoever. I am not saying that you hide this fact. To the contrary, it is spelled out clearly on your site. What you are missing is that because wine lovers care so deeply about service, giving out 3,250 awards a year without taking service into consideration is meaningless to us. And aren't we, your paying subscribers, the people you care about? While the award system in its current construction may have served a purpose in the past, times have changed. I would ask that you grab a copy of the August issue, stare at the cover for a solid 30 seconds, and then ask yourself if giving out 3,250 awards without considering service is at all useful. If you do that, I am sure that you see the point that you are missing.

JimmyV: You make good points...entering service in the equation is something we'd love to do (along with stemware and everything else). Short of inspecting 4,000 restaurants a year, this becomes a gargantuan task obviously, and a question that we are always wrestling with...

Fyi, our entry guidelines clearly state:

"The submitted wine list must be an exact copy of what is currently in use in your restaurant. Lists entered for judging must accurately
reflect what your customers will see and have access to."

As mentioned before, we don't pretend that there aren't a few folks out there embellishing lists - and we have had reader complaints that we have followed up on, resulting in restaurants being booted from the program...We do feel however that there are only a very small number of bad apples in the bunch.

quote:

Originally posted by James Molesworth:
Larry: This is the problem with the 'blogosphere'. It's a lazy person's journalism. No one does any real research, but rather they just slap some hyperlinks up and throw a little conjecture at the wall, and presto! you get some hits and traffic...

but frankly, I'd rather talk about wine...

Statements like this just go to show that Print media(at the non-fact checking end of it) has a lot in common with wine bloggers who also do not fact check. Ignorance is not exclusive to bad bloggers it appears.

Wake up.

quote:

Originally posted by cuffthis:

quote:

Originally posted by James Molesworth:
To Florida Wino and others who say we're not responding re: the process involved...

I'm sorry I don't get it - we've listed the judging criteria and explained how we go about things. The magazine article which accompanies the listing clearly states the numbers on who got rejected, etc. The website here provides all the pertinent info on the program...

What am I missing here?

James,

Most people think that the award process consists solely of a cursory read of the submitted wine list. That's it.

I think WS could really help itself with a thorough answer, such as this (hypothetical) one:

1. Wine lists submitted for consideration in our awards program are given to our awards panel.
2. The awards panel consists of ___ number of people.
3. The panel members qualifications are ________________.
4. The panel reviews each submitted wine list for accuracy, number of selections, etc.
5. A panel member compares the submitted wine list to the actual one on the applicant's web site. Any material differences result in a telephone call to the applicant. Non response by the applicant usually results in the application being rejected.
6. A panel member compares the submitted menu to the submitted wine list to provide assurance the wine list pairs with the food.
7. A panel member calls the restaurant to confirm all the data submitted is accurate before it is published. Non response from the applicant will cause the wine list to be rejected.
8. A panel member goes a Google search to find additional relevant information about the applicant's wine program. Substantial negative information is considered when evaluating the wine list for an award.
9. The whole evaluation process, in general takes about ______________ minutes (hours) for each wine list.
10. other

I think you get my point.

I want to make it clear that I want to see the WS Awards be the best they can be. That's why I wrote to you in the first place and offered constructive comments for positive changes to the program, not simply complaints.

Thanks,

Tom

You really ought to just shut up. I too am growing weary of your out and out shilling of your business on this site......

quote:

Short of inspecting 4,000 restaurants a year, this becomes a gargantuan task obviously, and a question that we are always wrestling with...

The solution is obvious, but perhaps one that WS is not willing to undertake. Since service is so important and service can't be evaluated for close to 4,000 restaurants, then drop the basic award. Focus your attention on the restaurants that can be evaluated and really do exemplify stellar wine service such that you never have to repeat the cover of your August issue. WS should be steering us to places that earn a checkmark in the top choice of your August cover. Not to places that warrant the bottom checkmark. If that means far fewer awards, then so be it.

quote:

Originally posted by James Molesworth:
JimmyV: You make good points...entering service in the equation is something we'd love to do (along with stemware and everything else). Short of inspecting 4,000 restaurants a year, this becomes a gargantuan task obviously, and a question that we are always wrestling with...

Why don't you raise the fee to $1,000 per applicant then?

Even if you only get 25% of the existing award winners to apply, you a) still generate the same $1M of gross revenue, b) make the program more managable on your end (1,000 vs 4,000), c) free up time and have more resources to add additional criteria to the selection process (stemware, storage, etc) and d) hopefully weed out the weakest wine programs.

$1,000 is not a material amount to be considered for an annual award from a recognized source.

quote:

Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
[You really ought to just shut up. I too am growing weary of your out and out shilling of your business on this site......

If you don't care to read my posts, you can click on my screen name and click the box to "add me to my ignore list", which is what I just did to you.

Enjoy your day.

I have to say, most of the criticism here is ridiculous. While I don't travel very often, I have used the award list many times. Who only gets the name and address of a restaurant receiving a basic award and heads right out to the restaurant?? There is a link provided to the restaurant's website right. Why do I need WS to spend all that time going to each restaurant's website and all the other crap people are suggesting when I'm going to do it myself anyway??

For example - I found a restaurant receiving an award. Checked their website; they had a particular bottle I wanted to try; I called, they had it in stock. I read the menu, saw things that appealed to me and made a reservation. WS did their job by providing me the link. Done deal. If they didn't have the wine in stock or if the menu sucked, I wasn't going. Who's the victim in that scenario? I wasn't "duped" into going to a crappy place with a bogus wine list because I did my own due diligence - which I will do every time I want to try a new place with a decent wine list.

My point is this - if you have the time to post all your complaints here you have the time to do research on the small handful of WS Award winning restaurants you might be trying for the first time.

quote:

Originally posted by cuffthis:
Unofficial, but you get the point!

1. Wine lists submitted for consideration in our awards program are given to our awards panel.
2. The awards panel consists of a number of people.
3. The panel members qualifications are protected by the privacy act.
4. The panel reviews each submitted wine list for accuracy, number of selections, etc.
5. A panel member compares the submitted wine list to the actual one on the applicant's web site. Any material differences result in a telephone call to the applicant. Non response by the applicant usually results in the application being rejected.
6. A panel member compares the submitted menu to the submitted wine list to provide assurance the wine list pairs with the food.
7. A panel member calls the restaurant to confirm all the data submitted is accurate before it is published. Non response from the applicant will usually cause the wine list to be rejected.
8. A panel member goes a Google search to find additional relevant information about the applicant's wine program. Substantial negative information is considered when evaluating the wine list for an award.
9. The whole evaluation process, in general takes some time for each wine list.
10. other

I think you get my point.

ditto.

quote:

Originally posted by cuffthis:

quote:

Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
[You really ought to just shut up. I too am growing weary of your out and out shilling of your business on this site......

If you don't care to read my posts, you can click on my screen name and click the box to "add me to my ignore list", which is what I just did to you.

Enjoy your day.

No, I don't think so. I enjoy hypocrisy at it's finest. Just like the hypocrisy of you claiming you won't read this.

I personally wouldn't spend a thin dime in your establishment. I'd rather drink 2-buck chuck with random bluehairs..........

Stop being a shill......... Well, we know that won't happen.......

One of the other interesting points here is the fact that WS TRUSTS that the wine lists submitted by the restaurants are accurate . . .

I don't know about many of you, but it's been ahwile since I've been to a restaurant and found their online wine list to be the same as the wine list at the restaurant. Heck, it's been awhile since I've been to a restaurant that their PRINTED wine list is accurate (pricing/vintages/etc.).

What to do about this? Don't know - on the one hand, it would be great if someone from WS could physcially visit each restaurant and assess, among other things, their actual wine list, stemware used, service, corkage policy, etc. But with a limited staff and a growing number of restaurants wanting to be considered, I can understand how this is not entirely feasible.

Perhaps the concept of a 'recommended' group of restaurants that do not receive 'awards' but are 'recognized' for their 'above average' wine lists might be in order?!?!?

Just a thought . . .

Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by Stevey:
Lets extend your bank analogy. Lets say said bank keeps all of said money in an unsecured back room with no security cameras (they don't purport to have any security); it also don't bother to do employee security checks on any of its 50 employees all of whom have keys to the back room (which is usually unlocked anyway because staff lose keys all the time), BUT each employee is required to sign a note saying they're honest AND the bank manager did Google each of their names verify that they've never done anything bad before.

And the bank gets robbed (duh!) and you have money in there. Do you fault the honest bank or the dishonest robber? Or both?

What if the bank puts in millions worth of security and charges you an enormous rate for the added measure and never gets an attempted robbery? Do you fault the bank?

Hey Seaquam, add ryanopaz to your list of fly by gumbas.

Look! A dead horse. . . and people are beating it . . . I wish it would stop. . .

quote:

Originally posted by cdr:
Look! A dead horse. . . and people are beating it . . . I wish it would stop. . .

Hey, you're the guy with the smart aleck quip in another thread about dining at a WS award winner in Milan. Walk the talk.

quote:

Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
I personally wouldn't spend a thin dime in your establishment.

How do you know my establishment even exists?

quote:

Originally posted by cuffthis:

quote:

Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
I personally wouldn't spend a thin dime in your establishment.

How do you know my establishment even exists?

I thought you had put GA on ignore???