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".
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.
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.
Ummmm most of us aren't defending WS or the Awards program.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.
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.
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?
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...
Our TCA stories certainly haven't offended any advertisers...
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...
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...
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??
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
* 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.
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.......
I need to post to unsubscribe from this thread. It's clogging up my inbox.
tanglenet what happen!!!!!!!
so are you CRS!
so are you CRS!
quote:Originally posted by CRS:
Do you hold the local high school's play to Broadway standards? Come off it.
I don't hold them to the same standards of quality but I do hold them to the same standards of effort. So I think Robin should put in the effort to do it the right way and not hide behind some garbage that his is only a "Blog" so it should have less standards.
quote:Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad: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.
Yes, I expect local junior-high underground paper to adhere to my lofty standards. And I expect Vinny down the street who stomps on grapes in his garage to equal the best that Mondavi can muster.
I did not really think it was necessary for me to specify, with footnotes even, that by "publication," I meant for-profit professional publications as opposed to any stapled-together Unibomber-type screed produced in a hut in the woods. I did not think it was necessary to treat you like an idiot.
Parse all you want, but it's nonsense on your part.
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.
Well-stated, but the one-hit-wonders won't understand that.
Is the number of newly registered, so-called "one-hit wonders" really of any surprise to anyone?? Really? This story is all over the place, where else do expect these people to have their input? I say welcome, discourse is good. stick around if you are really serious about making your point...
Back to the topic at hand, I firmly believe that it is programs like this that have made tremendous strides in wine service across the country. I clearly recall when travelling pretty much anywhere outside major metropolitan area in the US meant your wine selections were limited to "red or white", and sometimes "pink".
We've come a long, long way, and it is clear to me that Wine Spectator has been a major player in bring on that change. Do they now have egg on their face? Sure they do, but the benifit they've brought to all of us shouldn't be forgotten.
Back to the topic at hand, I firmly believe that it is programs like this that have made tremendous strides in wine service across the country. I clearly recall when travelling pretty much anywhere outside major metropolitan area in the US meant your wine selections were limited to "red or white", and sometimes "pink".
We've come a long, long way, and it is clear to me that Wine Spectator has been a major player in bring on that change. Do they now have egg on their face? Sure they do, but the benifit they've brought to all of us shouldn't be forgotten.
quote:Originally posted by CRS:
And I expect Vinny down the street who stomps on grapes in his garage to equal the best that Mondavi can muster.
Yes, which is why le pin sells for 1000$/bottle or are we not talking about wine on a wine forum?
Posts about giving head and deep throat in the same thread? Did I mistakenly type in the URL for the Penthouse Forums?
Moo
Moo
Nope, you just clicked on one of the links in your "favorites".......quote:Originally posted by Sacred Cow:
Posts about giving head and deep throat in the same thread? Did I mistakenly type in the URL for the Penthouse Forums?
Moo
oh no!
look out!
he's here!!!!!
look out!
he's here!!!!!
quote:"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.
If the only benefit is for tricking people into entering your place from some posting on your restaurant window - then why go to the trouble of sending in a fake list? Why not just say on the sign that you got the award (when you didn't). It'd be so much easier - and no less of a lie.
quote:Originally posted by Brian Loring:
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.
First, WOW! Brian, I had no idea this amounted to so much!
Secondly, an interesting point...quote:Originally posted by Eric White:
First, WOW! Brian, I had no idea this amounted to so much!
Scary when you think about it, isn't it?
In 2007, we made 13 different single vineyard designated Pinots. That means we'll send 26 bottles of wine (2 of each) to each publication. If we send wine to 9 reviewers (which is average), that's 26 x 9 x $50 = $11,700. And that doesn't incude the $1000 or so it costs to ship the wine.
Wow. I feel like I was a much younger man when I started reading this thread. Now that I've finally reached the end, the views I wanted to express have changed about 6 times.
Here it is in short:
WS Editors: I don't mean to pile-on, but somehow I can't believe that this comes as such a huge surprise to you all. It was bound to happen sooner or later. Your faithful forumites have been telling you for years in numerous threads that the Restaurant Awards are lame at best, and fraudulant at worst and have begged you to do something about it. Several have lamented dining somewhere sporting an Excellence or better award, and finding it sorely lacking. The only difference here is that you were "outed" publicly instead of here on the forums. Sure, this Goldstein guy is a jerk, and out to make money and agrandize himself. But he couldn't have done what he did unless there were major flaws to exploit.
Cash up front for recognition simply and irretrievably taints any "award". Like Little League parents who must pay for "awards" so every kid on team can feel like a winner.
Little to no fact checking of any recipients doesn't lend any credibility, either. You can't visit every restaurant that submits to you a list. Of course not, no one could. So that just means that you do not hand out awards willy-nilly to places that you have not seen for yourselves.
Perhaps this public Outing can be the impetus you've needed for years to start a major overhaul of the way these things are handed out, along the lines that many of your readers have suggested, or perhaps it's time to bite the bullet and scrap them altogether.
Here it is in short:
WS Editors: I don't mean to pile-on, but somehow I can't believe that this comes as such a huge surprise to you all. It was bound to happen sooner or later. Your faithful forumites have been telling you for years in numerous threads that the Restaurant Awards are lame at best, and fraudulant at worst and have begged you to do something about it. Several have lamented dining somewhere sporting an Excellence or better award, and finding it sorely lacking. The only difference here is that you were "outed" publicly instead of here on the forums. Sure, this Goldstein guy is a jerk, and out to make money and agrandize himself. But he couldn't have done what he did unless there were major flaws to exploit.
Cash up front for recognition simply and irretrievably taints any "award". Like Little League parents who must pay for "awards" so every kid on team can feel like a winner.
Little to no fact checking of any recipients doesn't lend any credibility, either. You can't visit every restaurant that submits to you a list. Of course not, no one could. So that just means that you do not hand out awards willy-nilly to places that you have not seen for yourselves.
Perhaps this public Outing can be the impetus you've needed for years to start a major overhaul of the way these things are handed out, along the lines that many of your readers have suggested, or perhaps it's time to bite the bullet and scrap them altogether.
I say welcome to the newcomers (well except for the brown nose Cay-hole guy that thinks he's going to be hired as a wine critic). New blood is always good and most of the posters seem fairly intelligent.
Often the long timers get stale and become one-trick wonders. Myself included.
Often the long timers get stale and become one-trick wonders. Myself included.
quote: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?
quote:Originally posted by CRS:quote:Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad: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.
Yes, I expect local junior-high underground paper to adhere to my lofty standards. And I expect Vinny down the street who stomps on grapes in his garage to equal the best that Mondavi can muster.
I did not really think it was necessary for me to specify, with footnotes even, that by "publication," I meant for-profit professional publications as opposed to any stapled-together Unibomber-type screed produced in a hut in the woods. I did not think it was necessary to treat you like an idiot.
Parse all you want, but it's nonsense on your part.
Nice! A journalist with "lofty standards" resorts to name calling, and can't directly answer a simple yes or no question without equivocating.
Let's try this: Goldstein's book that is being sold on Amazon, is that a "for-profit professional publication"? Or is it a "stapled-together Unibomber-type screed produced in a hut in the woods"?
And before you answer, you might want to consider that your argument is getting more specious every time your fingers hit the keyboard. But then again, that is what often happens when one really has no argument....
After reading the WHOLE thread...
My two-bits...FWIW.
On the serious side...I like what Brian Loring and Eric White have said on the issue.
On the humorous side...Seaquam, WIML, GA and a few others (that I can't remember their monikers) are kill'n me
I'm out.
My two-bits...FWIW.
On the serious side...I like what Brian Loring and Eric White have said on the issue.
On the humorous side...Seaquam, WIML, GA and a few others (that I can't remember their monikers) are kill'n me
I'm out.
I've been periodically checking this discussion in hopes that James or Thomas would publish the entire list submitted by Robin Goldstein.
Am I missing it, or am I waiting in vain?
Am I missing it, or am I waiting in vain?
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:
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.
Yes, I expect local junior-high underground paper to adhere to my lofty standards. And I expect Vinny down the street who stomps on grapes in his garage to equal the best that Mondavi can muster.
I did not really think it was necessary for me to specify, with footnotes even, that by "publication," I meant for-profit professional publications as opposed to any stapled-together Unibomber-type screed produced in a hut in the woods. I did not think it was necessary to treat you like an idiot.
Parse all you want, but it's nonsense on your part.
Nice! A journalist with "lofty standards" resorts to name calling, and can't directly answer a simple yes or no question without equivocating.
Let's try this: Goldstein's book that is being sold on Amazon, is that a "for-profit professional publication"? Or is it a "stapled-together Unibomber-type screed produced in a hut in the woods"?
And before you answer, you might want to consider that your argument is getting more specious and more transparent every time your fingers hit the keyboard. But then again, that is what often happens when one really has no argument....
His book is published by "Fearless Critic Media." Look it up. My Unibomber-hut analogy is spot-on.
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.
quote:Originally posted by bjohnson:quote:Here is our description of an Award of Excellence:
Our basic award, for lists that offer a well-chosen selection of quality producers, along with a thematic match to the menu in both price and style.
There are many holes in this “Award of Excellence” description. Yes this hoax’s wine list does qualify for the award of excellence. It has a well-chosen selection from top producers (but they were the worst wines from those producers but he had a LOT of good producers’ crappy wine). He matched the theme well (absurdly over priced wines probably matched his overpriced food, and a fake restaurant theme matched perfectly with the fake wine list theme).
It is good to heard both sides of this story but basically what WS is trying to say is as long as your carry “quality producers’ wine on your wine list it doesn’t matter if you have crap wine or not. It just has to match. Interesting, it sounds more like they are giving away awards for the producers chosen, not the specific wine chosen.
Well for the record, an Italian wine expert over on eBob defended those specific few very low-scoring wines as excellent examples of traditional Italian wine-making. So, while perhaps the vast majority of American wine consumers may agree with the WS ratings, those specific wines have their fans who will happily shell out $250 to drink them.
quote:His book is published by "Fearless Critic Media." Look it up. My Unibomber-hut analogy is spot-on.
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.
Soooo....how about those Cubs? Anyone watch them beat the Reds today?
quote:Originally posted by CRS:
His book is published by "Fearless Critic Media." Look it up. My Unibomber-hut analogy is spot-on.
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.
The analogy isn't spot on. Period. I know who published the book. It isn't difficult to figure that out. But again, is it being published and sold for profit? I think we both know that the answer is yes.
The bottom line is that it is a Goldstein issue as well as a WS issue. Period.
Did WS screw up? Yes! Is Goldstein a fraud? Yes! Once you are willing to acknowledge both counts, then a meaningful discussion can be had. Until then, nope....
quote:Originally posted by CRS:
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.
No. That's your issue or perhaps I should say instead "agenda". It's more fitting. We're having a discussion about how Robin "The Fraud" Goldstein scammed the WS. You're the one that can't seem to post on topic.
quote:Originally posted by Brian Loring:quote:"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.
If the only benefit is for tricking people into entering your place from some posting on your restaurant window - then why go to the trouble of sending in a fake list? Why not just say on the sign that you got the award (when you didn't). It'd be so much easier - and no less of a lie.
I'm not just talking about their window, and I think you know that.
I'm sure there are restaurants with computer and printers that do what you suggest all the time with WS, Zagats, etc. I don't see how that changes the fact that there is indeed utility in getting an undeserved "award".
quote: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.
I'm no fan of the awards, but this is simply asinine. Troll.
quote:Originally posted by Cledus J. Krelpfarth:
New person here!
Let's try to keep it simple.
First: One successful fraud indicates the potential for many. Hence, we must question the credibility of this publication. If one guy can do it, so can many.
Next: How much time and effort does $250 buy? You can't blame Goldstein for the way WS does their job. You can, however, question the value of your $250 investment into their "awards" process. And the price of your subscription.
Really folks - is it ok with you that this fraud was successful? Is it ok with you that the content and credibility of WS can so easily be shattered? Does this not bring into question every subjective judgment printed in WS? Regardless of the scruples or intent of Goldstein - WS was too easily duped. So, too, are we for defending a weak system that, in the end, is designed to guide where we spend our money.
Many of you attack Goldstein. Why? Goldstein's effort simply provides you with the opportunity to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. Is the "Award" real? Or simply a clever illusion? Goldstein found a way to give us a peek behind the curtain. Now you can decide - real? Or illusion?
Again - one fraud suggests many, and how much effort does $250 buy? Are you getting your money's worth (both readers and award applicants)? Can you trust WS to guide where you spend your good money?
The man behind the curtain is revealed - take a look.
But the fraud was obtuse and sensationalistic. It had nothing to do with the system could, and had been, abused. As JM indicated, and many of us remember from forum discussions, restaurants have occasionally abused the system, and been dealt with. But showing that wouldn't have been news, would it? It wouldn't be an effective means of self-promotion.