Okay, I give . . . where's the review of the review?

Marty reviewed Windy City Pizza today.

[Robin Garr]

Marty reviewed Windy City Pizza today.

Oops, sorry, we're doing a little minor renovation over here and my office has been a shambles for the last couple of days. I'll get back on schedule shortly.

Without comment or word count, here's a link to Marty's report on Windy City pizza. He gives it a glowing review, and 2 1/2 stars.

[url=http://cityguide.courier-journal.com/fe/RestaurantReviews/Profile.asp?businessid=47427]That pizza-parlor feel
Windy City serves thin or stuffed crust – and right mood[/url]

<B>Windy City Pizzeria</B>
2622 S. Fourth St.
(502) 636-3708
http://www.mywindycitypizzeria.com/

He gives it a glowing review, and 2 1/2 stars.

You must be busy to write this without any comment.

I was happy that we'd ordered frosted mugs of Goose Island Honker's Ale and BBC Altbier

Roger isn't going to like this

Looks like a 3 star report to me also, maybe 3 stars and above is reserved for "fine dining", however, this dining seemed pretty "fine" to me.

[Robin Garr]

He gives it a glowing review, and 2 1/2 stars.

You must be busy to write this without any comment.

I figured at this point the jokes just write themselves.

It IS a good example of the problem, though. As a neighborhood dive-style eatery where the salad dressing comes in little plastic packets, 2 1/2 stars seems right. Yet in a review that just raves (and justly so) about its core competency, it seems funny to give an under-3 rating (even if it does mean "good") to a place that arguably makes one of the city's better pizzas.

It's a dilemma. Do you rate all restaurants against an elevated standard of white-tablecloth atmosphere and service? Or should there be a way to recognize the city's best of each genre with a rating that reflects "best"? (NB: I don't know that Windy City would rate as my "best" for pizza, but it's certainly in my top 10 pizzas.)

I like Robin's philosophy, if a hole in the wall serves up the best burger in town or the best pizza in town then by definition the food is excellent. In Marty's review of the surrondings the environment seemed to fit what he wanted in a pizza place so why isn't that "most excellent" man!

I'd rather go to a laid back place with the best food in their "category" than to a stuck up white table cloth environment.

If the place is laid back and the food is great then you can relax and get your grub on without having to worry about being all proper.

You walk out feeling "excellent" because you are well satisfied and feel you got a great value and had a good time.

I don't care how good the food is, when I have a $100 meal it is hard for me to feel that it was a good "value".

Sometimes a four pound porterhouse that's $55 is just a little excessive in my opinion(ok, always)

The thin crust is very good but I think this is a great place to for those to try the Chicago style deep dish. Definetly not "casserole". The staff is also very personable.

and Rosen is right about the restaurant feeling like a pizzeria should. Older folks will think this was like their favorite joint from their college days, but with much better pizza.

[Robin Garr]

and Rosen is right about the restaurant feeling like a pizzeria should. Older folks will think this was like their favorite joint from their college days, but with much better pizza.

To me it feels more like a good neighborhood saloon should, except with pizza instead of beer. To be a proper old-fashioned pizzeria it would have to have plastic grapevines on the ceiling and red-checked tablecloths and Chianti-bottle candlesticks on the tables.

Other than that, though, I agree.

...To be a proper old-fashioned pizzeria it would have to have plastic grapevines on the ceiling and red-checked tablecloths and Chianti-bottle candlesticks on the tables...

Oh man, you need to get to Frolio's Pizza for a blast from the past. It has all the accoutrements you describe plus wall paintings of maps of Italy, gondola scenes, etc. The pizza was pretty good, too.

I like Robin's philosophy, if a hole in the wall serves up the best burger in town or the best pizza in town then by definition the food is excellent.

problem with that is acccounting for degree of difficulty. If one restaurant is grilling a perfect hamburger and one restaurant is perfectly executing a five course meal of haute cuisine, should they both get four stars?

you guys are all totally touching on the topic of conversation which led us to Windy City for pizza on Saturday afternoon. despite the horrible guilt to be one of the many who would inevitably pack the house on the same day when (what i would term as) a supportive review ran in the paper, the curiousity was killing me. curiousity won. and, in the end, i'm real glad it did.
however, the point still remains. whereas i am now of the belief that the stars which accompany any review may very well be contradictory to the review itself and the content of the review is where to look for facts to assist in decision making, this does not mean at all that i understand what this star rating system actually is or even why it is.
is it out of the realm of reason to have rating systems for different styles of dining establishments? i would imagine we mostly all have certain core standards we look for depending on what sort of place we are choosing to eat, i.e. white tablecloth versus local pizza joint.
how does Bourbon's get 3 stars with the food review that accompanied (which i'm sure you've all read) and Windy City gets 2 1/2 stars with a food review that was much more, well, supportive.
i just do not get it. and i would love to get it.
anybody have an explanation?