So, how did the CJ get Anselmo's up to two stars?

[Robin Garr]

I have to give the CJ reviewer credit: When she doesn't like a place, she doesn't keep it to herself.

"Anselmo's isn't a sports bar and the dining room isn't large enough to need three screens, but I suppose having entertainment isn't a bad idea to keep your mind off poor service and plates and bowls of mediocrity."

Oh, snap!

So, I've got to ask: How in the heck did Nancy get her rating UP to two stars?

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/en ... /16437573/

Hmmmm . . . and I used to think that this forum could get snarky on occasion!

Nancy needs to watch her back! I know of a couple who panned Anselmo's on Yelp and got harassed in return!

At least the owner didn't get in her face constantly as he did with me the one time I went there.

Get you in the face? What?

He was very, very ... enthusiastic. Interrupting conversation, constantly asking how things were, volunteering information about Grandma Anselmo and how it was all HER recipe, and how fresh and authentic it was. As if talking could make it so!

Maybe it was one star each for meatballs & tiramisu?
The snark didn't help. Susan R. could (and did) really heavy up on a restaurant at times but this was closer to a U of L review. Practically every Italian place outside of Vincenzo's & Volare has a sign or five provided by a megaswillery & the majority have games on TVs. Those condescending remarks communicate to readers nothing bad about the place, only that the author is being petty & elitist. In fact I've eaten there a time or two partly because NFL was on, unwashed Philistine that I am. Cloth napkins? Is that a joke?
We've been there many times and while we've never had bad service, I don't doubt her experience with that or the food. We only ever had one bad food experience when everything suggested a salt bomb went off in the kitchen. Never happened again. But it can be variable and we like some dishes more than others, consistent with her visit. I got the impression the review was based on a single visit from the lack of mention of any other. It seems most other reviewers try more than once if a visit is substandard to get a bit more perspective. That's the fair thing to do, unless you just can't wait to get to the snark.

I have no problems with this review. I find far too often we review local businesses and restaurants with kid gloves in the interest of being nice and supporting the locals in spite of what might be real reasons for complaint. I certainly don't mind a review that calls it like it is from someone in a position to do so. Sometimes a restaurant needs a harsh review to help them see areas that need improvement.

I agree that a review should be based on more than one visit, however, so maybe that is a breach of protocol here.

[Robin Garr]

I have no problems with this review. I find far too often we review local businesses and restaurants with kid gloves in the interest of being nice and supporting the locals in spite of what might be real reasons for complaint. I certainly don't mind a review that calls it like it is from someone in a position to do so. Sometimes a restaurant needs a harsh review to help them see areas that need improvement.

I hope I was clear in my initial post that I was not calling Nancy out for being negative. Just expressing confusion as to how a review that brutal justified more than one star ... "plates and bowls of mediocrity" didn't sound like enough for even a few good meatballs to save.

I agree that a review should be based on more than one visit, however, so maybe that is a breach of protocol here.

I'm not sure I buy that, if a skilled reviewer's eye detects systemic problems that are clearly not the bad luck of "an off night," and if solid resource material from either previous visits or reports from trusted associates align with that visit.

This is a funny coincidence, because in the past few days, a friend and I were talking about Anselmo's - not knowing that Nancy's review was coming. My friend made comments very similar to the CJ's findings - maybe even more negative - and I allowed as how I've never reviewed it simply because it didn't pass my "meh" test: Not good enough to recommend; not bad enough, in my experience, to waste a week's worth of ink on.

I like Anselmo's. It's definitely no-frills, and I don't go in expecting "down-home Sicilian cooking." I go in expecting American Italian food in a very laid back atmosphere.

Her use of the word "aloof" to describe her server makes me think she must have been in a different restaurant altogether. There is nothing animal, vegetable or mineral that could be described as "aloof" in that place.

This is a funny coincidence, because in the past few days, a friend and I were talking about Anselmo's - not knowing that Nancy's review was coming.

I don't buy it. You two have been mirroring each other since she started. I smell a conspiracy...

I like it.

Been there three times and liked it each time.

And yeah -- one time I ate at hte bar specifically TO watch a game.

Don't mess with my Anselmo's.

[Robin Garr]

I smell a conspiracy...

Yeah, I'll start conspiring with the CJ about the same time as you conspire with TFI Fridays.

I was honestly shocked at the mean spirit of the review. She didn't like it, and I got that, but the review was just short of vicious. The uber-snark was uncalled for.

[Robin Garr]

uber-snark

Eater-snark.

Their muffuletta is delicious!