Wine Spectator Has Been Scammed

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???

To FloridaWino and others who've mentioned the price of a site subscription:

Membership to WineSpectator.com costs $49.95 for one year -- not $99; if you buy an online membership jointly with a membership subscription, you get the two for $75.

We are not charging you to comment on the restaurants in our program. As printed on our free Restaurant Awards page and in the Restaurant Awards issue of the magazine: "If you have any comments regarding your experience at one of our award-winning restaurants, contact us at restaurantawards [at] mshanken.com." You are welcome to provide feedback at any time, whether or not you are site member.

As James points out, the reason that the online restaurant comments are only available to members is because that is the only way we can verify real names and prevent anonymous posters from slamming their competitors or other inappropriate behavior that does not provide useful information to our customers. But this is an ancillary part of membership--which includes access to entire database of tasting notes, the Personal Wine List tool, the auction price database, the Insider and Advance newsletters and more original content and services.

Dana Nigro
Managing editor, WineSpectator.com

Ne Kulturny has some good points here - certainly the Goldstein scam was over the top and designed simply to sell books and a website - it was easy for him to take the 2003 NY Times article on the awards and play this game with WS.
On the other hand, WS needs to take this seriously too - understand that you have egg on your face and your credibility is in question, not only on the wine list awards but also on wine reviews. Acting like the victim here will not win you friends. An honest apology and assessment/revision of how the awards are given is in order. There are too many holes in the restaurant wine list award process (e.g. not revisiting winners on a regular basis), and the bluster of acting like you're the injured party here will not help you. I think WS needs to publish revised, rigid guidelines that they will follow in the future, or these awards are in danger of being seen in the same suspicious light as medals from wine competitions.

quote:

Businesses such as restaurants, for obvious reasons, have a vested interest in embellishing their images online.

Apparently, so too do "fearless" authors.

For years I was a "Regional Correspondent" for Beckett Hockey Card Price Guide. In fact they may still list me in the magazine.

Every month I sent them my inventory list of prices, plus what had sold and at what price. This was very little burden to me, as I simply made them a copy of a list I already kept.

Every now and then I'd get an email asking about prices I was seeing on particular cards, players or sets and I'd answer the questions.

I asked for and was offered no compensation for the 'job'. The only reward was they printed my name in the magazine every month.

I don't want to come off like some and try and outline an awards program for James and Thomas. It does though seem that WS has enough loyal, interested readers, forum members and potential contributors to put some sort of low cost, live check/verification system in place.

I know that in the course of a year, yhn, Dave Tong and I could verify all the Award winners in the San Jose Area, without making a special trip, or I think ask for any compensation from WS.

Something as simple as a checklist of items to check and wine list copy of what was submitted, and in the course of our regular dinning out we could verify all the award candidates.

There is of course overhead cost and administration for this for WS, I don't doubt this, even if the regional 'checkers' are not paid, but it is a solution that would have caught this scam.

how many restaurants do the wine spectator staff go to during a year? I'd assume these guys (gals) are serious about their wine and recognize good service and lists when they see it. So, its not like they would need to go out and 'inspect' all 1000 of the places, they've already had a staff member at most of the places anyway.

yes the victime doesn't get all the blame, but one shouldn't be so quick to write out 100B checks to failed lenders who's weak lending practices put them in the prediciment in the first place. I think lending practices and wine award integrity comparisons are better anaolgies than wine awards and violent crime.

quote:

Originally posted by cuffthis:
It may help you to lower your level of crankiness also.

Just realistic. Feel free to continue the endless self-promotion.

quote:

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

Don't get me started on Cafe Chardonnay!

quote:

Originally posted by Gigond Ass:

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......

BINGO!

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?

You keep reminding us ad nauseum and made a huge point of announcing when you arrived. Your self-promotion began with your arrival.

a la Tbird....

quote:

Originally posted by mareff:
a la Tbird....

w/kim crawford sauv blanc?

quote:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:

quote:

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

Don't get me started on Cafe Chardonnay!

I used that e-mail address and let them have it. Cafe C is the pits, and lives only in their past glory. To be blunt it sucks. To think they are only 1/2 mile from my house, but I still go roaring past.

quote:

Membership to WineSpectator.com costs $49.95 for one year -- not $99; if you buy an online membership jointly with a membership subscription, you get the two for $75.

Kindly provide form, link etc as I am a subscriber to mag.

quote:

Originally posted by Florida Wino:

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:

Don't get me started on Cafe Chardonnay!

I used that e-mail address and let them have it. Cafe C is the pits, and lives only in their past glory. To be blunt it sucks. To think they are only 1/2 mile from my house, but I still go roaring past.

You said it. We used to love the place.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric LeVine:
FWIW, Ryan is a very well respected blogger who has been blogging away on Spanish wines for 4-5 years.

Then why the hit and run, and not more substantive debate? Was it because due to his status as a blogger, he felt wronged by my accusation of laziness in the blogosphere? (And don't forget folks, I have a blog myself)...

yet here I am, trying to do a decent give and take - not name calling or firing off a one-time snarky post...

if he thinks I painted with too broad a brush, he could say that, and I would understand his point...and at the same time he might also understand how I've been feeling since this whole debacle broke...

quote:

Originally posted by Florida Wino:
Kindly provide form, link etc as I am a subscriber to mag.

Just a click away from the home page, here.

geez, I post 1 popcorn eating emoticon and you guys go crazy with it

quote:

Originally posted by mountainman:
geez, I post 1 popcorn eating emoticon and you guys go crazy with it

...and WS adds it to their roster?

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:

quote:

Originally posted by Florida Wino:

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:

Don't get me started on Cafe Chardonnay!

I used that e-mail address and let them have it. Cafe C is the pits, and lives only in their past glory. To be blunt it sucks. To think they are only 1/2 mile from my house, but I still go roaring past.

You said it. We used to love the place.

Thanks to Jim M. Now on line.

I gave CC a 1 star. Treveni 5 stars in Palm Beach. Others I'll rate later as I have not been to River House is a year. Was real bad wine service onthat occassion. Warm, had the servevers, and they spilled part of it