Page
1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 22
 Topic Closed
Go |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Member
|
quote: ...gulf between the two on honest publications.
Oh, so now you narrow it down to honest publications. I see. But by definition, one that doesn't have the separation is not honest, is it? Kind of like Robin no? The scammer himself I mean. |
| |
|
Member
|
HEY Board-O, you still got that bridge???
May your strength give us strength
May your faith give us faith
May your hope give us hope
May your love bring us love ...
|
| |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Foghorn Bullhorn: quote: ...gulf between the two on honest publications.
Oh, so now you narrow it down to honest publications. I see. But by definition, one that doesn't have the separation is not honest, is it? Kind of like Robin no? The scammer himself I mean.
In the interest of accuracy, I don't claim that all publications are honest because I have not worked on ALL publications. However, those I've worked on were honest. And those my dad worked on apparently were, because as a child I certainly heard him gripe when a story offended an advertiser and thus cost him some business. He used to dream about us owning one together. I told him that we'd drive each other nuts because we'd each do our jobs the right way and that would bring us into constant conflict. Whether you want to believe it, that's the way it's supposed to work, and for the most part, that's the way it does. |
| |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by CRS:
Actually, I learned of this because a Web site for journalists linked to it.
Well at least I now know where some of these one hit wonders are coming from. Would you please post a link to that site? Some of us might like to voice our opinions over there. quote: If you have something of substance to argue, other than whether people have the right to an opinion that differs from yours, attack on point. Otherwise, you come off as an Internet bully who is intolerant of true discourse.
Yep, that's me. The Internet bully. Here to kick sand in your virtual face. My position in this thread has been limited to people like you that show up out of the woodworks to pollute our site with your attacks to soon fade away into the woodwork. I think that is wrong and have stated insomuch. You're the one trying to move off topic and make this a 1st Amendment issue. That's not what we're discussing here. If you'd like to discuss 1st Amendment issues then please go to the Travel and Entertainment section and start a thread there on that topic.
Joe
-----
Wine is like potato chips around me...if it's open, it's gone.
Come visit me sometime at http://www.winexiles.com/
|
| |
| Posts: 9880 | Location: Arlington, Texas | Registered: Aug 30, 2002 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by ColoradoClaire:
Goldstein was a clever investigative reporter and was his own Deep Throat.
certainly does give alot of head. |
| |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by CRS: quote: Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad: quote: Originally posted by CRS:
This may come as a shock to the uninfomed, but there are many of us who take any transgression by any publication very seriously indeed because it affects every publication's credibility.
CRS - I gather, then, that you take Goldstein's phony "data" very seriously (speaking of the "Under $15 expose"), and would apply the same lack of credibility there? Just wondering....
I see Wine Spectator as a mainstream publication that ought to be playing by mainstream rules. If we fixated on whether every blog on the Wild West of the Internet applied those basic standards to their work, we'd soon need something a lot stronger than wine. Wine Spectator needs to clean its side of the street. What the other guy did is irrelevant, unless they believe his blog is on equal footing with Wine Spectator in terms of credibility, audience and clout.
That is certainly a double standard. I thought that there were many of you who "take any transgression by any publication very seriously". Seems that you aren't holding Goldstein to the same standard.... hmmm....curious....
Romeo and Juliet are together in eternity....
|
| |
| Posts: 6143 | Location: Elk Grove, CA, USA | Registered: Dec 06, 2003 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Maverick:
HEY Board-O, you still got that bridge???
I've got an a certain tower in Paris that could be used as scrap metal for sale too.. with the high prices of steel, it'd surely be a bargain at the price I'd sell it for. |
| |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by wineismylife: quote: Originally posted by CRS:
Actually, I learned of this because a Web site for journalists linked to it.
Well at least I now know where some of these one hit wonders are coming from. Would you please post a link to that site? Some of us might like to voice our opinions over there. quote: If you have something of substance to argue, other than whether people have the right to an opinion that differs from yours, attack on point. Otherwise, you come off as an Internet bully who is intolerant of true discourse.
Yep, that's me. The Internet bully. Here to kick sand in your virtual face. My position in this thread has been limited to people like you that show up out of the woodworks to pollute our site with your attacks to soon fade away into the woodwork. I think that is wrong and have stated insomuch. You're the one trying to move off topic and make this a 1st Amendment issue. That's not what we're discussing here. If you'd like to discuss 1st Amendment issues then please go to the Travel and Entertainment section and start a thread there on that topic.
Why would I want you to "pollute" our site? LOL. Seriously, I know how annoying it is when we're invaded by outsiders. I sympathize. But you have to understand -- I don't care about converting you. I care about converting the Wine Spectator management. This is for them, you're just collateral damage. |
| |
|
Member
|
Well, thank you for straightening out the world to fit your world view! But it might be easier to write Marvin a very large check and make the changes yourself. Or do you only tell other people what to do with their money?
BTW BoardO, are you selling the bridge before the installation of Bloomberg's new windmills or after?
|
| |
|
Member
|
Personally, I think that nothing needs to be changed with the Wine Spectator awards program. Is it perfect? Probably not. But I'd submit that it can't be perfect. And any attempts to do so would make it so unworkable that no one would benefit. Let's say WS implemented the awards such that every restaurant was visited. What happens when the place changes ownership 3 months later and the wine list gets revised? Should Spectator visit every 3 months? Every month? And how would they communicate that information? Sure they could do it on the internet, but there's a HUGE percentage of readers that never check this site. The fact is there will always be some percentage of restaurants on the list that won't live up to their rating. What if the resaturant sends in a fake list? I'm sure it happens - but a restaurant that does that is very shortsighted. If someone is going there because of the award, they'll be madder than hell if the list doesn't live up to the award. The restaurant biz is a very competitive market - and you can't afford to pi$$ off customers like that. I'm not sure that the $250 fee bothers me. We send OVER TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS worth of free wine to publications (WS, Parker, Tanzer, Burghound, Enthusiast, etc) each year. I guess it never occurred to anyone that wineries essentially pay (in free wine) to get reviews each year. And I have to think that the award program has had a positive effect on the quality of wine lists. I would imagine that there have been countless number of places that got the one glass rating and tried harder the next year to get the two glass rating. That's good for all of us winelovers. So someone scammed Spectator. So what? To me, that only reflects bady on them. They found a way to beat the system. What did Goldstein really gain? He wasn't a restaurant owner, so he didn't benefit from his scammed award in any real sense. He got his 15 minutes of fame, but no WS reader was scammed or hurt. And no restaurant benefitted. Which in some ways makes me think the system isn't really that "broke".
Loring Wine Company
|
| |
| Posts: 353 | Location: Lompoc, CA, US | Registered: Feb 05, 2003 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad: quote: Originally posted by CRS: quote: Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad: quote: Originally posted by CRS:
This may come as a shock to the uninfomed, but there are many of us who take any transgression by any publication very seriously indeed because it affects every publication's credibility.
CRS - I gather, then, that you take Goldstein's phony "data" very seriously (speaking of the "Under $15 expose"), and would apply the same lack of credibility there? Just wondering....
I see Wine Spectator as a mainstream publication that ought to be playing by mainstream rules. If we fixated on whether every blog on the Wild West of the Internet applied those basic standards to their work, we'd soon need something a lot stronger than wine. Wine Spectator needs to clean its side of the street. What the other guy did is irrelevant, unless they believe his blog is on equal footing with Wine Spectator in terms of credibility, audience and clout.
That is certainly a double standard. I thought that there were many of you who "take any transgression by any publication very seriously". Seems that you aren't holding Goldstein to the same standard.... hmmm....curious....
Do you hold the local high school's play to Broadway standards? Come off it. This is amazing. Your publication deceives you and you folks are rabid in its defense. If only our readers thought we could do no wrong. I'd love it -- my hair would be less gray. |
| |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Brian Loring:
Personally, I think that nothing needs to be changed with the Wine Spectator awards program. Is it perfect? Probably not. But I'd submit that it can't be perfect. And any attempts to do so would make it so unworkable that no one would benefit.
Let's say WS implemented the awards such that every restaurant was visited. What happens when the place changes ownership 3 months later and the wine list gets revised? Should Spectator visit every 3 months? Every month? And how would they communicate that information? Sure they could do it on the internet, but there's a HUGE percentage of readers that never check this site. The fact is there will always be some percentage of restaurants on the list that won't live up to their rating.
What if the resaturant sends in a fake list? I'm sure it happens - but a restaurant that does that is very shortsighted. If someone is going there because of the award, they'll be madder than hell if the list doesn't live up to the award. The restaurant biz is a very competitive market - and you can't afford to pi$$ off customers like that.
I'm not sure that the $250 fee bothers me. We send OVER TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS worth of free wine to publications (WS, Parker, Tanzer, Burghound, Enthusiast, etc) each year. I guess it never occurred to anyone that wineries essentially pay (in free wine) to get reviews each year.
And I have to think that the award program has had a positive effect on the quality of wine lists. I would imagine that there have been countless number of places that got the one glass rating and tried harder the next year to get the two glass rating. That's good for all of us winelovers.
So someone scammed Spectator. So what? To me, that only reflects bady on them. They found a way to beat the system. What did Goldstein really gain? He wasn't a restaurant owner, so he didn't benefit from his scammed award in any real sense. He got his 15 minutes of fame, but no WS reader was scammed or hurt. And no restaurant benefitted. Which in some ways makes me think the system isn't really that "broke".
One of best responses (if not the best) to this whole thing. Thank you Brian. |
| |
| Posts: 65 | Location: NJ | Registered: Apr 22, 2008 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by CRS: quote: Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad: quote: Originally posted by CRS: quote: Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad: quote: Originally posted by CRS:
This may come as a shock to the uninfomed, but there are many of us who take any transgression by any publication very seriously indeed because it affects every publication's credibility.
CRS - I gather, then, that you take Goldstein's phony "data" very seriously (speaking of the "Under $15 expose"), and would apply the same lack of credibility there? Just wondering....
I see Wine Spectator as a mainstream publication that ought to be playing by mainstream rules. If we fixated on whether every blog on the Wild West of the Internet applied those basic standards to their work, we'd soon need something a lot stronger than wine. Wine Spectator needs to clean its side of the street. What the other guy did is irrelevant, unless they believe his blog is on equal footing with Wine Spectator in terms of credibility, audience and clout.
That is certainly a double standard. I thought that there were many of you who "take any transgression by any publication very seriously". Seems that you aren't holding Goldstein to the same standard.... hmmm....curious....
Do you hold the local high school's play to Broadway standards? Come off it. This is amazing. Your publication deceives you and you folks are rabid in its defense. If only our readers thought we could do no wrong. I'd love it -- my hair would be less gray.
Ummmm most of us aren't defending WS or the Awards program. Most of us are just pointing out what a bunch of a-holes you, the muckraker and all the one hit wonders are. It's a freaking pay for a plaque advertisement. So what. I wouldn't visit anyplace based on a freaking plaque, no matter who gave it to them or how they got it. You are just a tool. And a big one at that.
--------------------
"One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."
Marcel Ayme`
|
| |
| Posts: 6942 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Your publication deceives you and you folks are rabid in its defense.
It was not this publication that deceived us. It was Robin who is deceiving everyone. Did he ever work for 60 Minutes? |
| |
|
Senior Editor
Wine Spectator
|
Color me naive, but I'm going to assume CRS is an actual journalist who cares about integrity, and not Robin Goldstein making a cameo in The Return Of The Scam... quote: Originally posted by CRS:
And those my dad worked on apparently were, because as a child I certainly heard him gripe when a story offended an advertiser and thus cost him some business.
Our TCA stories certainly haven't offended any advertisers...  quote: Originally posted by CRS:
So naturally, some of us there find Wine Spectator's $250 fee an affront to everything we believe in. An "award" ought to be freely given without any financial reward to the publication. Ads ought to be clearly labeled as such.
So, CRS - would you give back a Pulitzer if you won one? They charge a handling fee to submit an application, which would be an affront to you...the National Magazine Awards charges an entry fee too... The fee that we charge has been used to help cover the growing costs of administering the program. New full-time staff positions have been created. New hardware purchased. Website revisions. Expanded listings in the mag with photos (what looks simple was not an easy thing to get implemented)...all of which is meant to do one thing - guide people to restaurants that care about wine... ColoradoClaire: How does keeping the check for those restaurants that don't win further prove it's 'just an ad'...? Wouldn't that prove the opposite? And yes, the entry had the required cover letter, on letterhead complete with logo, address, phone and fax numbers...
--JM
|
| |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by CRS:
This is amazing. Your publication deceives you and you folks are rabid in its defense. If only our readers thought we could do no wrong. I'd love it -- my hair would be less gray.
Out of curiosity just who is it that is being deceived?? As a subscriber to WS and a user of the award listing I fully understand what it is that WS has attempted to do with these awards. They have graded a submitted wine list. Nothing more. They don't purport to have inspected the storage conditions, stemware, food quality, ambience. What they are offering is a compiled list of restaurants who carry a nice selection of wines. Where is the deception?? |
| |
| Posts: 65 | Location: NJ | Registered: Apr 22, 2008 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by CRS:
Why would I want you to "pollute" our site? LOL. Seriously, I know how annoying it is when we're invaded by outsiders. I sympathize. But you have to understand -- I don't care about converting you. I care about converting the Wine Spectator management. This is for them, you're just collateral damage.
So it's OK to pollute our site but not yours? Got it. Yet another double standard being exhibited. At least you're being straightforward about the situation. War it is then.
Joe
-----
Wine is like potato chips around me...if it's open, it's gone.
Come visit me sometime at http://www.winexiles.com/
|
| |
| Posts: 9880 | Location: Arlington, Texas | Registered: Aug 30, 2002 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by CRS:
Do you hold the local high school's play to Broadway standards? Come off it.
Of course not, but then I don't purport to take "any transgression of any publication very seriously" - as you stated. And please point out to me where I have been rabid in the defense of the publication. You can't, because I haven't. I have simply pointed out an example of duplicitous acts and phony "academic research" as practiced by Goldstein (hmmm...Goldstein. Enemy of the state....Sorry, I digress - stickman, where are you????). I will ask again, and maybe you won't circumvent the question: Since Goldstein has published his works (again referring to the $15 bottle situation), and that you take "any transgression of any publication very seriously", wouldn't you apply the same lack of credibility to him? Pretty simple question that only needs a yes or no answer.
Romeo and Juliet are together in eternity....
|
| |
| Posts: 6143 | Location: Elk Grove, CA, USA | Registered: Dec 06, 2003 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by James Molesworth:
Color me naive, but I'm going to assume CRS is an actual journalist who cares about integrity, and not Robin Goldstein making a cameo in The Return Of The Scam...
NAIVE.... 
Romeo and Juliet are together in eternity....
|
| |
| Posts: 6143 | Location: Elk Grove, CA, USA | Registered: Dec 06, 2003 | |
|
Member
|
quote: I'm not sure that the $250 fee bothers me. We send OVER TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS worth of free wine to publications (WS, Parker, Tanzer, Burghound, Enthusiast, etc) each year. I guess it never occurred to anyone that wineries essentially pay (in free wine) to get reviews each year.
This is why I pointed out that Consumer Reports buys everything it reviews instead of accepting samples. Not only does it keep them bribe-free, it ensures they're getting the same thing the customer will get. CHARGING $250 to be considered for an award ... well, who is being served here? The restaurant, the magazine, not the readers. The "award" is not merit-based if a fee is charged. |
| |
|
Member
|
Arriving here through Digg as I am a big wine enthusiast and eat out nearly every night, it seems to me one interim fix would solve a lot of problems: make each award clickable on the site through to a page listing the entry submission. This would achieve a number of things:
* a journalist could have easily checked if the scammer's submission was solely on 10 crap wines and found it wasn't true
* enable forum readers to figure out *why* a restaurant got an award, whether it is dubious taste on the part of WS, whether the restaurant 'embellished' to get the award, or simply management has changed and it is out of date.
* it provides added value to the award, allowing the restaurant to advertise their prize wines for free
I can't really see any arguements against. Not privacy as the list is probably on their web site, and if not then it's freely available on the menu to anyone that walks in. Not security as you do not have to publish quantity of each, and there are plenty of web sites offering the annual turnover of each business.
CRS speaks a lot of sense btw. An obvious flaw has been exposed in that, irrespective of the Goldstein scam, it has provided a catalyst for a lot of the members to voice their distrust of the system and they clearly state they ignore the awards and go straight to the forums. And the fact they appear to be chomping at the bit to provide WS with free labour to help keep the content updated (for instance keep the award winners honest in terms of the wine list) is a fantastic opportunity for WS to exploit.
WS can turn this into a win-win situation.
Phillip.
|
| |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by sydthesquid: quote: Originally posted by Brian Loring:
What if the resaturant sends in a fake list? I'm sure it happens - but a restaurant that does that is very shortsighted. If someone is going there because of the award, they'll be madder than hell if the list doesn't live up to the award. The restaurant biz is a very competitive market - and you can't afford to pi$$ off customers like that.
This is the point at which I tend to disagree with you. From what I have read here and on E-Bob, it is my guess that most folks who are serious about wine pay little heed to whether a restaurant has the first-level award, and do not base their visit on the award. They may go in and either think the list stinks or it doesn't, but they aren't probably going to be particularly outraged that the lousy list got an award, because they had no expectations in the first place about the restaurant holding the award. Any restaurant fudging their wine list isn't looking for these folks, anyway. However, I guess (and this is all guesswork) that there is a large middle ground of people who are not wine freakazoids s like, umm..welllll...us, but maybe have heard the name of Wine Spectator somewhere and will view this "award" as having more of a meaning than it actually does. "Hey Sue, this place has a Wine Spectator Award, so it must be good. Let's go in". So, submitting a trumped up list allows them to post that they are a "winner" and attract customers. Oh, never mind...... I'm boring myself with this subject..... Time to move on.......
|
| |
|
Member
|
I need to post to unsubscribe from this thread. It's clogging up my inbox.
"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 | |
|
Member
|
tanglenet what happen!!!!!!!
so are you CRS!
|
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Topic Closed
© Wine Spectator Online 2009
|
