CJ picks blogger Lindsey McClave as dining reviewer

[Robin Garr]

At first glance, she looks like a good fit for the job and a step up from the recent incumbent.

Here's the CJ story:
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/en ... /90712762/

And here is Lindsey's own web page:
http://www.lindseymcclave.com/

She seems to be an active free-lancer, but hasn't crossed my path at all. Do any of you know her?

Her LinkedIn profile says she's been director of sales & marketing at 21C for five years. Her personal site looks pretty professional. It is unusual that her name isn't well known among freelancers around town, but maybe she's just getting into it locally.

[Robin Garr]

Her LinkedIn profile says she's been director of sales & marketing at 21C for five years.

Honestly, I'm a little disappointed to see industry ties as close as that. This is why in the Bingham days, the food critic had to be a reporter on staff doing it as an extra job. But that train left the station a long time ago.

[Robin Garr]

She also wrote for Thrillist. I am going to try really hard not to snark on that, and just put it out there.

My wife's cousin. She'll do fine considering what tiny shoes she has to fill. She's bright, energetic and has a passion for writing and food. A long awaited, younger breath of fresh air has arrived. Give her a chance.

[Robin Garr]

My wife's cousin. She'll do fine considering what tiny shoes she has to fill. She's bright, energetic and has a passion for writing and food. A long awaited, younger breath of fresh air has arrived. Give her a chance.

Sounds good. Thanks for the personal testimony, Ed.

She can write!! The introduction piece was well written. No mixed metaphors, awkward analogies, or tortured sentences.

I have high hopes.

Can I make one request? please make the star ratings (1) mean something, and (2) match the review.

There is no point in having 4 stars if all restaurants get something between 3-4 stars. It doesn't tell us anything. It would also eliminate the need to use half-stars.

How about this:

No stars: Poor, cannot recommend
1 Star: Fair, some good aspects but flaws are present
2 stars: Good, a dependable choice
3 stars: Very good, consistently exceeds expectations in food and service
4 starts: Extraordinary: Achieving near perfection in every aspect, a destination for any special occasion (should be the best of the best)

She's a "foodie girl". Sounds legit.

I checked out her blog. I have some positive vibes about this.

First of all, she writes well. There is a logic and coherence to her writing and she seems to understand how to verbalize and prioritize things.

Secondly, let's face it, the bar was high after Marty Rosen and Nancy very, very successfully lowered the bar. It may take her a while to get to Marty's level but in her first article she already surpassed Nancy.

She just started a new show on KET called Farmer and the Foodie.

She also has a version of the show on Crescent Hill Radio - http://www.crescenthillradio.com/the-farmer-and-the-foodie.html

[Robin Garr]

She just started a new show on KET called Farmer and the Foodie.

She also has a version of the show on Crescent Hill Radio - http://www.crescenthillradio.com/the-farmer-and-the-foodie.html

So, without sitting in (too much) judgement, the ideal of the anonymous/low-profile critic is dead and gone?

She just started a new show on KET called Farmer and the Foodie.

She also has a version of the show on Crescent Hill Radio - http://www.crescenthillradio.com/the-farmer-and-the-foodie.html

So, without sitting in (too much) judgement, the ideal of the anonymous/low-profile critic is dead and gone?

Apparently so. I guess she'll have a profile picture next to her byline.

I'm afraid the good ol' After Dark days are past, but that Louisville Times column was always a favorite of mine, and made me excited about going someplace new.

She just started a new show on KET called Farmer and the Foodie.

She also has a version of the show on Crescent Hill Radio - http://www.crescenthillradio.com/the-farmer-and-the-foodie.html

So, without sitting in (too much) judgement, the ideal of the anonymous/low-profile critic is dead and gone?

I thought the same thing after seeing the KET promo. It will be interesting to see how/if her high profile impacts her reviews.

[Robin Garr]

I thought the same thing after seeing the KET promo. It will be interesting to see how/if her high profile impacts her reviews.

To be honest about it, this troubles me less than the very cozy relationship that the prior incumbent had with chefs through "Secrets of Louisville Chefs" and having "done PR" for a number of Louisville restaurants. She did a couple of scorching reviews during her short tenure, but as far as I could tell, she never dissed a friend or client. THAT is what would get the Binghams to spinning in their graves.

As far as I can tell, Lindsey does not have that kind of conflict. And if she uses common-sense approaches to keeping a low profile when she reviews, that's all we can reasonably expect.

She can write!! The introduction piece was well written. No mixed metaphors, awkward analogies, or tortured sentences.

I have high hopes.

Can I make one request? please make the star ratings (1) mean something, and (2) match the review.

There is no point in having 4 stars if all restaurants get something between 3-4 stars. It doesn't tell us anything. It would also eliminate the need to use half-stars.

How about this:

No stars: Poor, cannot recommend
1 Star: Fair, some good aspects but flaws are present
2 stars: Good, a dependable choice
3 stars: Very good, consistently exceeds expectations in food and service
4 starts: Extraordinary: Achieving near perfection in every aspect, a destination for any special occasion (should be the best of the best)

A better idea is to take some advice from other industries and get rid of the "4 star" rating all together. There is such a wide variety of possibilities that it just doesn't work. And maybe it's just me (it's not), but I'm exceedingly unlikely to go to a restaurant that got rated two stars, because it doesn't mean what you have above in almost any publication in my lifetime (I'm likely younger than most here), in any area. Maybe I'm off base, but I'm pretty sure anyone in my age group agrees the stars are closer to:

0 stars: Reviewer hates the owner of the restaurant and or is the biggest curmudgeon who ever lived (seriously, I've never seen a single fair 0 star review in my life -- though Sports and Social Club is probably the closest to a 0 star place that I've ever been)
1 star: Truly terrible. Avoid at all costs
2 stars: Really bad
3 stars: Good
4 stars: Excellent

Again, this is why at least a few other industries stopped using "four star system" in their reviews, and instead went closer to what Robin does with the %s, or just dispensed with the ratings all together and made it about the actual review.

All that aside, I agree with the general theme of your requests. I really disliked knowing that the stars meant absolute bupkis.