Originally posted by sydthesquid: I don't see how that changes the fact that there is indeed utility in getting an undeserved "award".
I know I'm beating this to death... but what the heck!
Let's look at two types of restaurant customers - those who care about wine and those that don't.
The ones that don't care about wine probably aren't going to be swayed by an award for a wine list. Unless they see it as adding to the overall "awarded-ness" of the place - which somehow translates to it being a good place to eat. But I can't see this being significant in any way. Just my opinion, of course.
The ones that do care about wine might be tempted to eat at the place because of the award. But when they don't have a good wine experience, who do the blame? I'd say it'd be the restaurant - not Spectator. Maybe I'm projecting, but my first comment would be "this place must have gone downhill since Spectator rated them". Or I'd think "they must have submitted a bogus wine list". In either case, the restaurant loses.
And that's the key to the whole process - a real restaurant has too much to lose from cheating the system. I'll admit that there could be some benefit from the deception, but the risk/reward isn't there for me to think it'd be more than an occassional thing. Someone else might disagree, but that's how I see it.
Goldstein had nothing to lose - so he could do anything he wanted to without any ramifications. That's simply not the case for real restaurants. People can't fault Spectator for not accounting for fake restaurants - since they'd be no reward for someone doing that, short of trying to stand up and say "look at me - I hacked the system".
Loring Wine Company
Posts: 353 | Location: Lompoc, CA, US | Registered: Feb 05, 2003
Originally posted by yhn: an Italian wine expert over on eBob defended those specific few very low-scoring wines as excellent examples of traditional Italian wine-making.
Hell, I coulda told you that!
Just one more sip.
Posts: 25027 | Location: NY | Registered: Oct 18, 2001
But someone being able to hack the system is a bug. Bugs can be ignored, or fixed, depends on the impact to the customer or the business. (I'm amused by this because you were a developer and I was a tech support engineer so I've heard this go around about 100,000 times, "it's a bug", "so what the impact is small",)
In this case, the impact will be large to WS. The Times hates WS, they'll use this like a 6 inch nail and apply it right to WS's forehead.
I think WS needs to fix this bug. Was it a hacker and a con man who exposed the bug and is the bug not real world? Yes. But next year someone else will try it again and declare all over again, the award is bogus.
The comments on this board over the years from the Uber Wine Geeks has been that they don't value the award. That should also be a concern. We know those people lead the market. If they've lost confidence in the award, that's a leading indicator that the market will.
The problems need to be addressed and fixed. Personally I'm not going to be like Tom and get on a soap box and tell them how I want it fixed. They do a good job, they're smart people, they can figure it out, but in my opinion the Awards Program needs a service pack.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Stefania Wine,
Paul Romero (tlily)- Owner, Winemaker, Tour Guide Stefania Wine http://www.stefaniawine.com
Posts: 5726 | Location: San Jose | Registered: May 24, 2002
Originally posted by CRS:But this is a tangent. I don't think Robin Goldstein is the issue. The Defenders of the Wine Spectator Empire would like it to be, but I ain't agreein'. The issue is Wine Spectator screwed up and it ought to stop extorting money for awards and either grant them honestly or not at all.
As a journalist, I'd think the much bigger issue is that someone like Goldstein could submit his "study" to various media, and they just blindly and unquestioningly report whatever he says. The media is being broadly abused in this regard.
Posts: 1132 | Location: Mountain View, CA | Registered: Oct 18, 2001
Originally posted by ColoradoClaire: In accusing Robin Goldstein of "malicious duplicity” and calling him an “unscrupulous person,” Wine Spectator has subscribed to the “best defense is an offense” philosophy. You have accused Goldstein for his “elaborate hoax,” when it appears that the award itself is something of a hoax.
Goldstein was a clever investigative reporter and was his own Deep Throat. He outed your award ruse, but rather than print a gracious and sincere apology, you have blamed Goldstein for uncovering the scam.
Interesting. No one on here has used the term "malicious duplicity". That was Mark Squires. On his board he suggests WS investigate a possible lawsuit. Sounds like you read it there. But you're replying here?
For the record, the people over on eBob are being much more vitriolic about Goldstein than here. Sure, there was a lot of glee before it was revealed he was involved, but once that came out...
eBob is where we discussed, debated and ultimately exposed his wine study as a fraud and a vehicle of self-promotion. So despite the rivalry between the two board, the familiarity over there with who this is and what he's really trying to accomplish completely discredits your assertion that this is just a bunch of WS apologists. Goldstein is the one who has been exposed. His self-promotion is the scam.
Posts: 1132 | Location: Mountain View, CA | Registered: Oct 18, 2001
How can one trust anything published by the wine spectator. Is it all for sale now to the highest bidder? The point was made and now the editors are upset and trying to blame others. The system of picking the awards is obviously a joke. Who else is paying to get an award or a score? I was wondering when I read the magazine on who checks out the restaurants? Some of the ones in NJ are not that great in what they offer yet they got an award.
Bravo to Goldstein.
Wine Spectator ought to clean up its act regarding the awards instead of blaming him.
Originally posted by skol: Shame on the Wine Spectator!
How can one trust anything published by the wine spectator. Is it all for sale now to the highest bidder? The point was made and now the editors are upset and trying to blame others. The system of picking the awards is obviously a joke. Who else is paying to get an award or a score? I was wondering when I read the magazine on who checks out the restaurants? Some of the ones in NJ are not that great in what they offer yet they got an award.
Bravo to Goldstein.
Wine Spectator ought to clean up its act regarding the awards instead of blaming him.
$250 is the highest bidder???
Out of curiosity, which restaurants in NJ are you referring to?
there is blaring contradiction in this labyrinthine thread...the bandwagon hoppers have declared the Spectator as a 'dishonest' and 'untrustworthy' magazine & claimed that they've attacked Goldstein for his 'unveiling.' Well, Goldstein was the liar (obviously), and not only was full of deceit, he was very comprehensive in his chicanery, creating an elaborate scheme complete w/ an intricate website, answering service, wine & food menus, etc….and he proved….that very elaborate lies can net a fooled magazine? Wow- hope the 250 dollars were worth it; it only proved he is a very misguided individual and that the Spectator can never be careful enough from deliberately deceitful individuals trying to gouge their reputation.
Originally posted by sydthesquid: I don't see how that changes the fact that there is indeed utility in getting an undeserved "award".
I know I'm beating this to death... but what the heck!
Let's look at two types of restaurant customers - those who care about wine and those that don't.
The ones that don't care about wine probably aren't going to be swayed by an award for a wine list. Unless they see it as adding to the overall "awarded-ness" of the place - which somehow translates to it being a good place to eat. But I can't see this being significant in any way. Just my opinion, of course.
The ones that do care about wine might be tempted to eat at the place because of the award. But when they don't have a good wine experience, who do the blame? I'd say it'd be the restaurant - not Spectator. Maybe I'm projecting, but my first comment would be "this place must have gone downhill since Spectator rated them". Or I'd think "they must have submitted a bogus wine list". In either case, the restaurant loses.
I'll give it one more shot, too, then we can both go on with our lives, such as they are.
I think that you are wrong in your classifications. In my opinion, there is a slice of customers that really cares about wine. They are not going to care at all about WS awards, because they make there own judgments on wine and do not depend on the award. If they do pay attention, they indeed will blame the restaurant.
On the opposite end, there is a slice of people that don't care about wine, don't know WS and ignore the award, and will judge the joint on whether they have double-packed, extra-bacon-stuffed giant triple-baked potatoes with extra cheese.
I think that there is a huge middle swath of diners who kinda sorta cares about wine, sorta kinda pays attention to it once in a while, but rarely get beyond the "that tastes nice" stage of wine drinking (a stage that I sometimes wish I was still at)and aren't all that well informed about wine. These are the guys who may get influenced by seeing an "award" that the restaurant gets. They probably won't really equate it with "oh! Good wine service, let's go" They probably figure if a wine thingy magazine is giving it an "award", it must be a good restaurant. When they dine there, most of them probably won't know if it is bad or award-worthy service and won't know enough be disappointed unless it is really, really bad. The reward here for the dastardly cheatin' restaurant is getting most of that middle swath into the restaurant because you are diplaying an "award".
That's my story, and I'm sticking with it unless, of course, someone challenges me. Then I'm folding like a cheap lawn chair.
Originally posted by yhn: an Italian wine expert over on eBob defended those specific few very low-scoring wines as excellent examples of traditional Italian wine-making.
Originally posted by yhn: an Italian wine expert over on eBob defended those specific few very low-scoring wines as excellent examples of traditional Italian wine-making.
Hell, I coulda told you that!
Relentless.
Way too easy....
Romeo and Juliet are together in eternity....
Posts: 6183 | Location: Elk Grove, CA, USA | Registered: Dec 06, 2003
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!!!
May your strength give us strength May your faith give us faith May your hope give us hope May your love bring us love ...
Originally posted by yhn: an Italian wine expert over on eBob defended those specific few very low-scoring wines as excellent examples of traditional Italian wine-making.
*********************** "I have drunk not to the clouding of my reason, but just so much that I can still surely distinguish the syllables with my tongue." Athenaeus
Posts: 3390 | Location: montreal | Registered: Feb 21, 2004
Originally posted by skol: Shame on the Wine Spectator!
How can one trust anything published by the wine spectator. Is it all for sale now to the highest bidder? The point was made and now the editors are upset and trying to blame others. The system of picking the awards is obviously a joke. Who else is paying to get an award or a score? I was wondering when I read the magazine on who checks out the restaurants? Some of the ones in NJ are not that great in what they offer yet they got an award.
Bravo to Goldstein.
Wine Spectator ought to clean up its act regarding the awards instead of blaming him.
New Jersey, huh? You wouldn't happen to be a member of his wine group, would you?
Posts: 1132 | Location: Mountain View, CA | Registered: Oct 18, 2001
there's too much of this thread to read, so let me just say that scams happen. they happen to news organizations, academic organizations, financial institutions, and entire governments. hell, even oprah got scammed! but just because scams happen does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water, which is what i am reading into many of the posters -- especially those who seem to be doppelgängers of this pseudointellectual blowhard goldstein -- who have excoriated the wine spectator for their lack of due diligence. sure, the WS screwed up. but then again, so did other news organizations (i.e. msnbc) and bloggers for jumping all over this story without doing their own due diligence.
the real issue here is NOT that the WS got scammed. sure, the scam was pretty artfully done. goldstein even seemed to have gone so far as to set up a telephone number in italy for his fake restaurant. but what does it prove? all it proves is that a lifestyle magazine can be scammed. it's the wine spectator people, not the new york times! the real issue here, as many people have already mentioned, is what is the WS going to do now that they have egg on their face? rather than diss the magazine and its restaurant issue entirely, i think this is a real opportunity for the magazine to make some critical changes to the program so that the awards it hands out become legitimate and meaningful to food and wine lovers around the world. if done properly, the restaurant issue could be a kind of zagats for wine, which i think would be great for the magazine in the long term.
Posts: 616 | Location: Orange County, CA | Registered: Jun 24, 2006
Originally posted by James Molesworth: 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 Pulitzers charge $50 for an entry, and if you win, you get $10,000. It's a non-profit, with administration by Columbia University. Journalism jurors are unpaid. The only people who benefit financially are the prize winners.
You aren't a non-profit, and you aren't overseen by a disinterested non-profit party. You are a money-making enterprise that charges $250 for an entry. Do your award-winners contend for cash prizes?
One category for the pulitzer price is: For a distinguished example of meritorious public service by a newspaper through the use of its journalistic resources which, as well as reporting, may include editorials, cartoons, photographs, graphics and online material, a gold medal.
The winner of this is out $50. Must be a scam..
____________________ An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools. - Hemingway
While I do understand that WS cannot do more than due dilligence to verify the existence of a restaurant, I find Matthews response lacking.
By taking a stance of victimization, and attacking back in what Matthews feels is in-kind retaliation, WS is showing a distinct lack of the class we would expect from such a long-running institution among wine lovers.
I am having a difficult time trying to comprehend why WS / Matthews would not acknowledge that the awards process has some kinks in its armor that need to be addressed, perhaps even reaching out to the public here or those that ran the study for ideas on how to address the 5% of low quality wines that they seemingly missed from the award-winning wine list in this case.
Originally posted by 1WineDude: While I do understand that WS cannot do more than due dilligence to verify the existence of a restaurant, I find Matthews response lacking.
By taking a stance of victimization, and attacking back in what Matthews feels is in-kind retaliation, WS is showing a distinct lack of the class we would expect from such a long-running institution among wine lovers.
I am having a difficult time trying to comprehend why WS / Matthews would not acknowledge that the awards process has some kinks in its armor that need to be addressed, perhaps even reaching out to the public here or those that ran the study for ideas on how to address the 5% of low quality wines that they seemingly missed from the award-winning wine list in this case.
This is simply bad form.
Bad form? Why don't you write about this on your wine blog Joe instead of our forum?
Joe ----- Wine is like potato chips around me...if it's open, it's gone.
Come visit me sometime at http://www.winexiles.com/
Originally posted by 1WineDude: While I do understand that WS cannot do more than due dilligence to verify the existence of a restaurant, I find Matthews response lacking.
By taking a stance of victimization, and attacking back in what Matthews feels is in-kind retaliation, WS is showing a distinct lack of the class we would expect from such a long-running institution among wine lovers.
I am having a difficult time trying to comprehend why WS / Matthews would not acknowledge that the awards process has some kinks in its armor that need to be addressed, perhaps even reaching out to the public here or those that ran the study for ideas on how to address the 5% of low quality wines that they seemingly missed from the award-winning wine list in this case.
This is simply bad form.
Bad form? Why don't you write about this on your wine blog Joe instead of our forum?
I just assumed (maybe incorrectly) that this was the quickest route to letting WS know my thoughts on the matter. I'm hoping that WS cares about what potential customers are thinking, and how they're interpreting the WS response.
If that's not one of the aims of this forum, then I'll offer my apologies and keep out of the forum on this topic.
I hope that's not the case - I see tools like this forum as great sources of input for WS, its potential customers, and wine lovers in general.
