Havana Rumba -- a change in expectations/experiences

Two friends and I recently ate at Havana Rumba for what must be the 50th time and, at least to us, it seemed like the service and attention was starting to slide.
Small things like requests for "no tomatoes" on the Tostones con Pollo resulted in a gaggle of tomatoes and without any melted Monterey cheese; the Ensalada de Casa -- which is clearly identified in the menu as "Spring mix, tomatoes, cucumbers, avocadoes and queso blanco" came with a single pinky-sized sliver of avacado and, when questioned, the waitress came gnathair close to poking her finger in the salad and said, "See, there's some avocado".
When we complained at closing, the waitress said she would take off the cost of the Coca-Cola as reparation. Yeah. We had to ask for a manager who apologized (but defended the misnomer of "avocado piece" versus the "avocadoes" as listed in the menu) and gave us a gift certificate to offset our experience, but the questions still linger.
We always felt the service at HR was some of the most attentive in town and maybe this is a one-time low point, but it does raise subjective concerns. I'm not in the know about whether the change in ownership has created this slack -- I just know a few less people who are going to be double-checking how bad we really want to go there the next time.

Havana Rumba has been and continues to be run by the same individuals for some time now. Fernando, who is leaving Mojitos but has not done so yet, has not been involved for the most part with day to day operations at Havana Rumba since Mojitos opened. I eat there at least once per week (3 times last week to be clear) and a single slice of avocado on the house salad has always been standard fare as far as I can remember. Would you have been happier if they diced it to make plural as described on the menu? If you requested a dish without tomatoes and got them anyway you have a gripe, but I would hardly call it a "subjective concern". To be clear you got a gift card as reparation for the bad experience, thus it appears to me that you were adequately compensated for the mishap. I went with a party of 8 for lunch last week and the service was flawless with everything coming out as ordered. I would chalk this up to an off night, but no reason to be concerned.

To add my two cents, Gary, thanks for your post and your recap. I agree with Will so far as to say that the gift certificate should have been ample reparation, but nonetheless, it's good that you posted your experience as that is largely what lots of us do here.

I think Will's reply was a bit harsh leaning towards encouraging you not to give a negative review, which in my opinion, is out of line. The fact that they gave you a gift certificate does not change the fact that, in your opinion, you had crappy service. They did do something to make it up to you, as you noted, but that shouldn't preclude you from commenting on your experience.

I think Will's reply was a bit harsh leaning towards encouraging you not to give a negative review, which in my opinion, is out of line. The fact that they gave you a gift certificate does not change the fact that, in your opinion, you had crappy service. They did do something to make it up to you, as you noted, but that shouldn't preclude you from commenting on your experience.

I don't think my comments were out of line. The reviewer included a point about a change in management, which is untrue and has nothing to do with the service he received. The menus at HR have not changed as far as I can remember, nor has the presentation of the house salad. To complain because the menu says avocados and you only received one slice is very picky at best, and for most people would not have any effect on the dining experience. It appears, from my point of view anyway, the reviewer included these two items to try and emphasize that he had a bad experience. If you take them away, is writing a review titled "HR -- a change in expectations/experiences" justified just based on the inclusion of tomatoes when you requested they be omitted?

I have no problem with people posting negative reviews as long as they are fair. When you start including inaccuracies (reference to management change) as a potential justification for the problem or ongoing problems, then I feel your review begins to loose credibility. My review was intended to emphasize this point without coming right out and saying it, but I have no problem doing so if need be. I don't want to discourage negative reviews nor do I want to offend anyone, but when I see something that I feel is bias, unfair, or that I know includes inaccuracies I am going to call that out. If you want to call that harsh please feel free to do so.

Gary, I had a similar bad experience with the service there, and a similar experience with the forumites not taking kindly to any criticism of this restaurant.

[Robin Garr]

Gary, I had a similar bad experience with the service there, and a similar experience with the forumites not taking kindly to any criticism of this restaurant.

Laura, please understand that (1) it is all right to post a negative review, and (2) it is acceptable for other forumites to disagree. As long as they do so civilly, that's the kind of discussion that we're here to do.

Are you suggesting that anyone who posts a negative review should be protected from discussing their opinion? Just curious.

Will,

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and entitled to defend the restaurant. It just seemed to me that you were attacking the poster a little bit, as often happens when "newbies" post negative reviews (I don't mean from you).

In his defense on the management change, he said "I'm not in the know about whether the change in ownership has created this slack . . ." He clearly states that he doesn't know the facts, but nevertheless, potential changes in ownership/management at Mojito and Havana Rumba have been discussed ad nauseum here. If I had a bad experience there, my first thought would likely be as to whether Fernando planning to leave the country had an effect. I think this is a worthy inquiry.

Second, he wasn't put off by his experience just because he got tomatoes when he requested they be left off (though this is a justifiable complaint, especially at a place of HR's caliber) nor was it just because he didn't get enough avocado--rather, it appeared to me that his complaint was with the way his server and management handled the situation. Nearly putting one's finger in a diner's salad to point at something is not acceptable behavior from a server at any establishment. Offering to comp a soft drink is also pretty lame. Yes, this was eventually remedied by the gift certificate, but in reality the restaurant should have just apologized from the start and brought out new dishes that met with the diner's expectations. This is what I would expect from a place like Havana Rumba, which is a compliment to my own experiences there.

Finally, it was the following comment from you that most seemed like a personal attack--it just came across to me as rather snide. "Would you have been happier if they diced it to make plural as described on the menu? If you requested a dish without tomatoes and got them anyway you have a gripe, but I would hardly call it a "subjective concern."

Gary, I had a similar bad experience with the service there, and a similar experience with the forumites not taking kindly to any criticism of this restaurant.

Laura, please understand that (1) it is all right to post a negative review, and (2) it is acceptable for other forumites to disagree. As long as they do so civilly, that's the kind of discussion that we're here to do.

Are you suggesting that anyone who posts a negative review should be protected from discussing their opinion? Just curious.

Robin--my response is (A): Will's original post had snide remarks that seemed as a personal attack on Gary (see my above post), and (B): I agree with Laura--Havana Rumba is a favorite here and it seems people get up in arms about negative comments. I love HR, but it's possible to have a bad experience. There are other "favorites," like Seviche, for example, that I would think twice about posting something negative (not that I have anything negative to post) for fear or regulars calling me out.

People often jump to defend with "I eat there all the time and it's always great." In essense, that is saying the person with the negative experience just "isn't in the know," and that is not fair.

Are you suggesting that anyone who posts a negative review should be protected from discussing their opinion? Just curious.

I believe there are only so many times two people are able to talk back and forth until the most basic question is asked:

A. " Why didn't you like it? "
B. " Because I didn't like it. "
A. "Why not?"
B. " Because,I didn't like it."
A. "Why not?"

Seriously, I do not believe it's wrong for people to seek clarification on a review. However, I do believe people should expect differences in taste. Just, because.

Will,

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and entitled to defend the restaurant. It just seemed to me that you were attacking the poster a little bit, as often happens when "newbies" post negative reviews (I don't mean from you).

In his defense on the management change, he said "I'm not in the know about whether the change in ownership has created this slack . . ." He clearly states that he doesn't know the facts, but nevertheless, potential changes in ownership/management at Mojito and Havana Rumba have been discussed ad nauseum here. If I had a bad experience there, my first thought would likely be as to whether Fernando planning to leave the country had an effect. I think this is a worthy inquiry.

Second, he wasn't put off by his experience just because he got tomatoes when he requested they be left off (though this is a justifiable complaint, especially at a place of HR's caliber) nor was it just because he didn't get enough avocado--rather, it appeared to me that his complaint was with the way his server and management handled the situation. Nearly putting one's finger in a diner's salad to point at something is not acceptable behavior from a server at any establishment. Offering to comp a soft drink is also pretty lame. Yes, this was eventually remedied by the gift certificate, but in reality the restaurant should have just apologized from the start and brought out new dishes that met with the diner's expectations. This is what I would expect from a place like Havana Rumba, which is a compliment to my own experiences there.

Finally, it was the following comment from you that most seemed like a personal attack--it just came across to me as rather snide. "Would you have been happier if they diced it to make plural as described on the menu? If you requested a dish without tomatoes and got them anyway you have a gripe, but I would hardly call it a "subjective concern."

I suppose we can agree to disagree regarding this topic. The first sentence that you noted was meant to have a contemptuous (def: showing or expressing contempt or disdain; scornful) undertone, because I feel the original reviewer was nitpicking to an unreasonable level, and that it was simply included as fluff and didn't add value to the review. Snide (def: derogatory in a nasty, insinuating manner) would indicate that I made some type of remark about the reviewer himself. A personal attack takes that one step further. None of my remarks consisted of either and I will leave it at that. The second sentence is a matter of personal opinion, which clearly differs amongst myself, the reviewer, and you. I am unclear as to how that is "snide" or a "personal attack".

One other interesting point that you made in your response to Robin, was something about how people defending a restaurant often use the "I eat there all the time so you must be wrong angle". While this may be true, you didn't mention the reviewer himself stated that he had been about 50 times. The review didn't mention at all any bad experience during a previous visit, just focusing on the last one. So I have to assume the first 49 visits were satisfactory, and thus after this single bad experience the reviewer will now think twice about going back. This, to me, appears to be an embellishment or an underlying trend of unreasonableness in the reviewers remarks (coupled with the avocado complaint). If I liked a place enough to visit 50 times, I know that one or even two bad experiences in a row wouldn't be enough for me to question ever going back. It brings into question whether the server actually "nearly stuck her finger in the salad", or whether that was an embellishment too.

You may call these questions "personal attacks" or "snide" remarks, but I call them professional skepticism and a valid critique of the review. I have no reason to "defend" the restaurant. I am simply raising valid concerns about a post, and as much as I love a good debate (believe me I do) I am going to give you the last word on this one. I had no intention of critiquing the review to this level when I made my initial post, and I believe it is time to call it a day!

[Robin Garr]

Seriously, I do not believe it's wrong for people to seek clarification on a review. However, I do believe people should expect differences in taste. Just, because.

I agree.

While this may be true, you didn't mention the reviewer himself stated that he had been about 50 times. The review didn't mention at all any bad experience during a previous visit, just focusing on the last one. So I have to assume the first 49 visits were satisfactory, and thus after this single bad experience the reviewer will now think twice about going back. This, to me, appears to be an embellishment or an underlying trend of unreasonableness in the reviewers remarks (coupled with the avocado complaint). If I liked a place enough to visit 50 times, I know that one or even two bad experiences in a row wouldn't be enough for me to question ever going back. It brings into question whether the server actually "nearly stuck her finger in the salad", or whether that was an embellishment too.

While I have to agree with Brad that your initial remarks were a bit on the snide side, you really have no basis to sit here and question the accuracy of Gary's review.

While saying he'd visited there "50 times" may have been embellishment, it also could have been perfectly accurate. The point is, you (most likely) don't know Gary outside of the forum. If we start questioning whether or not he's telling the truth, then why not question whether or not he is actually Gary? For that matter, I don't know you. You very well may have not eaten there last week with a party of 8 and had flawless service. It could have been two months ago with a party of 5 with some minor problems that you don't remember. I have absolutely no way of knowing.

My point here is that questioning the validity of someone's statements in any forum setting is a bit tasteless. When we have a community here that relies so heavily upon honesty and civility to function, where we have to assume that as fellow foodies none of us want to give bad reviews to restaurants we love, then I'd say its downright rude.

Laura, please understand that (1) it is all right to post a negative review, and (2) it is acceptable for other forumites to disagree. As long as they do so civilly, that's the kind of discussion that we're here to do.

Are you suggesting that anyone who posts a negative review should be protected from discussing their opinion? Just curious.

Robin, I agree with what you say above. However, like Brad mentioned, it just seems like there are certain restaurants that are so loved and protected by the forumites that there is a sense that anyone who doesn't love them just doesn't get it or something. Que sera sera.

And no, I'm not suggesting by any means that people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with negative reviews!

[

While I have to agree with Brad that your initial remarks were a bit on the snide side, you really have no basis to sit here and question the accuracy of Gary's review.

While saying he'd visited there "50 times" may have been embellishment, it also could have been perfectly accurate. The point is, you (most likely) don't know Gary outside of the forum. If we start questioning whether or not he's telling the truth, then why not question whether or not he is actually Gary? For that matter, I don't know you. You very well may have not eaten there last week with a party of 8 and had flawless service. It could have been two months ago with a party of 5 with some minor problems that you don't remember. I have absolutely no way of knowing.

My point here is that questioning the validity of someone's statements in any forum setting is a bit tasteless. When we have a community here that relies so heavily upon honesty and civility to function, where we have to assume that as fellow foodies none of us want to give bad reviews to restaurants we love, then I'd say its downright rude.

As a writing instructor, I must argue that there's a difference between attacking the validity of someone's statements/viewpoint and questioning the way in which these statements are presented. I'm not really in the mood to take sides, so I'll just say that it seems (to me) that Will was doing the second option and not the first. Whether he did so effectively or whether or not someone else agrees with my reading is up for debate.

As for HR, I think I have spoken negatively about it on the forum a time or two. I've never been impressed with their overall service. My gf really likes the food (as do I) so I just go with the flow. Since she has been in Spain starting in September, I have only been once. This visit was up to my standards. To clarify, I'm (merely) okay with the table service at HR. It's the greeting and the guest wait handling that has never made sense to me. Thus, I tend to visit in the middle of the week to avoid the crowds. Problem solved, as the food is worth experiencing.

I do agree, though, that their tends to be a biased love fest with certain restaurants on this forum - as should be expected, since restaurant review is both subjective and emotion-driven.

Will,

To keep this from becoming too cumbersome, I'll just respond without quoting our whole back and forth.

I appreciate your definitions, and I didn't intend to take things to the third level of commentary. My overall point was that I thought Gary's remarks were well within the line of acceptable criticism, and that you unfairly responded. Again, your have every right to defend the restaurant and to disagree publicly with his take. My bottom line was that I felt your tone was unwelcoming, especially to someone new to this forum (or at least new to posting).

/Finished beating dead horse.