CJ's happy with Yaching's East West

[Robin Garr]

Marty went to Yaching's East-West this week and found it more appealing that most of us do, judging from some of the comments in this forum thread. In fairness, the tofu-based "Buddha Steak" that he describes does sound excellent, so maybe a lot depends on what you choose. It's a hefty report for Scene at 634 words, and it earns a three-star rating.

[url=http://cityguide.courier-journal.com/fe/RestaurantReviews/Profile.asp?businessid=46751]East meets West
Yaching's offers an eclectic mix, but the tofu stands out[/url]

<b>Yaching's East West Cuisine</b>
105 S. Fourth St.
(502) 585-4005

I had the same dish that Marty had, at least in name, but mine just wasn't what he describes. My noodles were overcooked, and my shrimp were deveined to the point of being nearly cut in half, several were tangled together and they were on top of the dish and looked like an afterthought. After reading his review and with my own experience fresh in my mind, I have to wonder if he was recognized. All in all in wasn't a bad meal, and if I'm hungry and in that block, I'd likely go back. But a destination? nah.

I hope he went there more than once? The one-visit-only review isn't fair to anyone.

[Robin Garr]

I hope he went there more than once? The one-visit-only review isn't fair to anyone.

Speaking from many years of experience in this business, I'd argue that one visit <i>can</i> be enough of an exposure to draw firm conclusions, but it depends. If there's any doubt about consistency, a second visit is warranted. But a qualified critic can generally draw sound conclusions on the basis of a single visit.

Bear in mind, too, that when you go out to dine at a new place, if you have a bad experience or even a lackluster one, it's not likely that you, or other consumers, are going to risk your hard-earned shekels on another dinner there.

I hope he went there more than once? The one-visit-only review isn't fair to anyone.

Speaking from many years of experience in this business, I'd argue that one visit <i>can</i> be enough of an exposure to draw firm conclusions, but it depends. If there's any doubt about consistency, a second visit is warranted. But a qualified critic can generally draw sound conclusions on the basis of a single visit.

Bear in mind, too, that when you go out to dine at a new place, if you have a bad experience or even a lackluster one, it's not likely that you, or other consumers, are going to risk your hard-earned shekels on another dinner there.

You don't sound so sure about that. I would agree that in exceptional cases, but definately not most cases, it could be a "done deal" in one visit. That would be the two extremes of the scale. The ones of excellence and the those that excel at being awful. Those only take one visit. But that is maybe 10 or 20 percent of places?

Also, bear in mind, that when I go to a restaurant I don't circulate my experience to the entire city. Someone with that kind of platform should want to be a bit more considerate when they speak. Just for the sake of their own credibility. A much more thoughtful review based on a lot of visits, provides a fair and balanced perception to the readers and the restaurants. It just goes with the territory. It's not quite like any other critique. Movie critics have it easy. Sounds like the big fight towards the middle.

A much more thoughtful review based on a lot of visits, provides a fair and balanced perception to the readers and the restaurants. It just goes with the territory.

I'm no expert, but I don't think this goes with the territory anywhere in the restaurant review business, does it? Often one meal, sometimes a follow-up or two to confirm an especially bad (or good?) review. Who does "lots of visits"?

As an "apprentice" reviewer for LEO, I do go to places more than once before I write, but I usually only write about one experience. If the first experience is consistant with the rest, that's what I write about, because that is what most people will base their opinion of an establishment on. I was in food service for quite a few years before my present career, so I know everyone has an off day or a shaky employee, I try to give them a chance.

A much more thoughtful review based on a lot of visits, provides a fair and balanced perception to the readers and the restaurants. It just goes with the territory.

I'm no expert, but I don't think this goes with the territory anywhere in the restaurant review business, does it? Often one meal, sometimes a follow-up or two to confirm an especially bad (or good?) review. Who does "lots of visits"?

It depends on a lot of factors. For Robin I would say no, nor would I expect him to, he is in it for the love of the game so he is untouchable to me. He may or may not be getting something from the LEO but he was doing it on his own stack long before the LEO added him to the roster. Marty, I would expect a few visits but I am aware of the "Gannett" factor. I never said he made one visit though, I was hoping he wasn't writing based on one visit, he could have been there a few times and only wrote about one visit in particular. Who knows? There are those that make many visits before they write reviews. They typically have bigger audiences though. Like Robin was alluding to, when you have done it a while, you start to see the patterns and 1 or 2 visits can be, but aren't definately, accurate.

I find Marty to be an excellent critic. I don't have a problem trusting his judgment (not that I always agree with it).

I find Marty to be an excellent critic. I don't have a problem trusting his judgment (not that I always agree with it).

There was never a charge that he was anything but good. I find him competent as anything else we get in this town. I wouldn't read his stuff if it were not for Robin posting them on the forum though. He does use some words that drive me bonkers. Not just he "all" food critics use "Served atop" or "served with" and "accompanied" and "on a bed of" or their variations, are a driving force for food critics. There may not be an alternative but it does make me a little bored when everything reads the same. Why not say "the Tofu straddled over a plentiful saddle of rice" or a "seat", why a "bed" or "atop"? Why not? It would make me laugh. Or "with a belt of cauliflower, brocolli....(except spell broccoli correctly). There are all kinds of ways to describe things but you get the same ole jargon.