quote: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".