Bill P wrote:Robin Garr wrote:I'm down with CQ for the food.
Robin-
This could be interpreted two ways. Was that intentional?
BP
No. I'm agreeing that CQ is a reasonable destination for food, not just for ambience.
Bill P wrote:Robin Garr wrote:I'm down with CQ for the food.
Robin-
This could be interpreted two ways. Was that intentional?
BP
Matthew D
Foodie
1347
Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:22 am
No Longer Old Louisville
Deb Hall
Foodie
4169
Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:46 pm
Highlands , Louisville
Michelle F wrote:Seriousy, who goes to CQ for the food? The food there is awful. I do enjoy the view, that awesome deck and the cocktails! I just eat before I go lol. It's a shame, gorgeous spot.
Michelle F wrote:Seriousy, who goes to CQ for the food? The food there is awful. I do enjoy the view, that awesome deck and the cocktails! I just eat before I go lol. It's a shame, gorgeous spot.
Michelle F wrote:Seriousy, who goes to CQ for the food? The food there is awful. I do enjoy the view, that awesome deck and the cocktails! I just eat before I go lol. It's a shame, gorgeous spot.
Brian Taylor Clark
Foodie
172
Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:58 am
Louisville, Ky
DanB wrote:Just my $0.02 but I don't think diners/online reviewers are under any real obligation to "have a quiet word" with management before giving negative online reviews. You might do so if it's a favorite joint and you really want to remain a return customer. I suppose it's a factor of the size of the local market. Louisville, despite punching well above its weight-class food wise, is still a mid-market city with only X number of indies going against the chains. One too many negative reviews without a large number of reviews to provide statistical relevance can really hurt a place's survivability.
OTOH, I live in a metropolitan area of 6 million and I generally wouldn't spend a minute of my time correcting someone else's business failings. Management MIGHT do something about it...or maybe nothing at all. In a big market there are just too many other options for me to wonder if they tried to fix what was broke. I just go elsewhere.
I use online review sites a lot and I want to see as many reviews as possible, good, bad, and ugly. It's like reading the thoroughbred racing form. Too many negative reviews in a row and you can see who's trending poorly and avoid them. The more online reviews available, the better you can filter for obvious shills and those who are writing unfair negative reviews for whatever reason.
DanB wrote:Just my $0.02 but I don't think diners/online reviewers are under any real obligation to "have a quiet word" with management before giving negative online reviews.
Mark R. wrote:You are not under an obligation to do that but you should in order to enhance your dining experience. Why should you let a problem with your meal or service go unreported to management? Yes it does give them a chance to correct the problem and possibly look better but the real reason in my opinion is so you can salvage the rest of your evening. Reporting an incident will also help the restaurant to improve in the future instead of thinking everything is going well.
Users browsing this forum: Claudebot, Facebook and 6 guests