interesting article on restaurant ratings in louisville

[Robin Garr]

Ken Neuhauser was the restaurant critic for Scene just before me! He knows the territory. I think he wrote the column for maybe three or four years before I took over early i 1984.

Kudos to anyone who can name the three (?) who served before Ken.

I was about to say Ronni Lundy, but then I looked at the year and realized she would have been after that.

[Robin Garr]

I was about to say Ronni Lundy, but then I looked at the year and realized she would have been after that.

Ronni came after me, and thus after Gannett. She was followed by Susan Reigler, who held the post for a very long time, and now Marty. (Or Marty and Dana? I notice Dana's been writing the now-Friday column for the past couple of weeks, and I should add that she's been doing a really good job. I wonder if they're grooming her to move into the post.)

Okay, old-timers: Who served in the Scene dining critic's post before Ken Neuhauser and then moi? (Not to be confused with the CJ, which started after the Times and had a separate critic until I took the combined post after the papers merged.)

Wow Robin, you are going WAAAYYY back. I was a paperboy back in the mid 70's and remember delivering both papers, but the only columnist I can remember was Richard Des Rousseaux. (sp?) He was a funny tongue-in-cheek kind of writer, but that is the best I can come up with.

[Robin Garr]

Wow Robin, you are going WAAAYYY back. I was a paperboy back in the mid 70's and remember delivering both papers, but the only columnist I can remember was Richard Des Rousseaux. (sp?) He was a funny tongue-in-cheek kind of writer, but that is the best I can come up with.

Yep, Richard Des Ruisseaux, a very funny man. He was the first Scene dining columnist and must have held the post for five years or so. He then went on to write a city column for The Times, but as I recall, it was killed at the time of merger or before, perhaps because the more staid folks at the CJ didn't really get his style of humor. He became a copy editor, then left to start the short-lived Snitch, a local magazine that covered Louisville crime with an "if it bleeds, it leads" philosophy.

Getting the ones who came between Desaroo and Neuhauser is going to be tougher, but I'll bet there are other Baby Boomer foodies around this forum who can dig it up. Hints: One went on to become a NPR correspondent. Another is still at the CJ.

the short-lived Snitch

Whoa, now that's a deep cut.

[Robin Garr]

nteresting article

Interesting, prissy, and not very well informed.

I got it right? What do I win? LOL Here is to getting up at 4:30 AM and delivering those papers!!!!

Say a student turns in a paper/test. Teacher grades it. Student resubmits it with the teacher's "corrections." Gets a perfect score. The question that remains is whether or not the student actually knew what he/she was doing or if he/she knew only how to carry out the corrections.

Seems like this is a similar scenario. Restaurant has an issue. Gets docked for it. Corrects it in a quick turnaround. Scores highly on "re-check." The question remains: is this due to some new understanding on the part of the restaurant (such that there shouldn't be issues down the road) or is there merely a responding to the red-ink on the page?

Maybe there should be a different category for such situations? Seems like the situation described is different than getting a "B" on the original check.

Granted, this is really about grade inflation. If "B" is meets requirements, isn't that all we are really interested in? Why not just make it Pass/Fail?

[Robin Garr]

Why not just make it Pass/Fail?

I like that.

[Robin Garr]

Why not just make it Pass/Fail?

I like that.

Well, on further thought, a three-tier system really is needed. Pass (unequivocal); pass (with specific areas for improvement) and fail (fix it fast, then re-test). Of course, that's basically what we have now.

The real issue is whether a restaurant should be able to claim an A after rebounding from a fail, or if it should be "punished" by being required to hold a B (after correction) until the next regular inspection.

Does this make sense? Really, A, B and C is simple. I gets complicated when we consider the mechanics of when to close a restaurant as opposed to merely giving it a bad rating but leaving it open (barring an uncorrectable issue that's a threat to life or health); and the moral issue (really that's what it is) of how long it should take for complete redemption after a C.

Why not just make it Pass/Fail?

I like that.

Well, on further thought, a three-tier system really is needed. Pass (unequivocal); pass (with specific areas for improvement) and fail (fix it fast, then re-test). Of course, that's basically what we have now.

The real issue is whether a restaurant should be able to claim an A after rebounding from a fail, or if it should be "punished" by being required to hold a B (after correction) until the next regular inspection.

Does this make sense? Really, A, B and C is simple. I gets complicated when we consider the mechanics of when to close a restaurant as opposed to merely giving it a bad rating but leaving it open (barring an uncorrectable issue that's a threat to life or health); and the moral issue (really that's what it is) of how long it should take for complete redemption after a C.

I was thinking the same thing, except the B is problematic because you can arrive at it in three-ways:

1. Originally graded pass with improvement needed
2. Originally failed and re-graded B
3. Originally failed and re-graded A which is changed to a B.

Maybe all three levels are the same. Maybe they are not. Would you rather have the place pass but need improvement or fail and then pass with flying colors?

(Or Marty and Dana? I notice Dana's been writing the now-Friday column for the past couple of weeks, and I should add that she's been doing a really good job. I wonder if they're grooming her to move into the post.)

I hope not, seems Marty is on vacation. Marty's reviews are 10x better. She pretty much just slammed L&N and gave them 3 stars, not much good to say. Looked more like 2.5 stars from the review.

And now having given it more thought, all three of those options lead merely to this conclusion: even if they are all equal, they are not as good as getting the "A" the first time.

I have a friend who won't dine at any restaurant with less than an A in the window. That mindset is going to hurt the businesses in this current system. On the other hand, there are people like myself who don't pay any attention to it, and walk into any open establishment serving food. If the restaurant has issues, I think a probationary period could be put in place, whereby the health dept. visits weekly, and eventually if things are consistently improved, the rating can be upgraded.