CJ seems to like Liang's Cafe in Springhurst

[Robin Garr]

Quick post while I'm on the road (and apologies for not getting to this yesterday!) Marty reviews Liang's, the Chinese place out in Springhurst (former Peking City) that's run by the former maitre d' of Emperor of China. Good review of a nice place that offers a good mix of well-fashioned modern Chinese-American dishes and a few more authentic Chinese regional items. As I often am when I read the CJ, I was a little puzzled by a seeming mismatch between the words of the review and the 2 1/2-star rating; it's certainly not a four-star establishment, but the text made it sound like at least a 3. And you've got to enjoy Marty's erudition when it shows through in terms like "pentatonic melodies" and "out of sync with the zeitgeist." Not that I would ever write something like that ...

[url=http://cityguide.courier-journal.com/fe/RestaurantReviews/Profile.asp?businessid=47426]Classic Chinese calm
Liang's adds unconventional twists, details to standards[/url]

<B>Liang's Cafe</B>
3571 Springhurst Blvd.
(502) 425-0188

I read the review in print and was thinking the same thing. I didn't see any negative comment so why 2 1/2?

Robin, get over the CJ rating with the Star system. It means nothing to me, as does the way you rated your old reviews with stars and numbers. I want the reviewer to tell me if the food and service is good or bad and I think most readers can go for there.
Why do you always have to comment on the CJ reviews? This seems to be an obsession with you.
Star rating is for first graders papers from the teacher.
I also said the above on your rant on Mojito’s comments.
Doug Chin

I disagree, the star rating system for restaurants is widely used and many readers pay attention to the star rating based on the "four star experience" as the best possible dining experience.

I'd even bet that quite a few readers look at the star rating and don't even read the article, especially if the rating is on the lower level of the ratings.

I disagree, the star rating system for restaurants is widely used and many readers pay attention to the star rating based on the "four star experience" as the best possible dining experience.

I'd even bet that quite a few readers look at the star rating and don't even read the article, especially if the rating is on the lower level of the ratings.

If that is the case then why waste the ink on the review? Star Rating is the interpretation of the reviewer. Each reviewer has his or her own rating per star. Doug

What does 2.5 stars mean in CJ rating system? I thought it meant good.

2.5 = Good in the CJ

Thanks Brian.

So, again I have to disagree with Robin on this issue. Marty's review reads as though the place is "good". He then gives it the star rating that corresponds with "good". "Good" for Marty!

Seriously, this was my major pet peeve with Riegler. She refused to use the whole scope of the star spectrum. The overhwhelming majority of restaurants ended up in a meaningless log jam of 3 to 3.5 stars. A tourist coming to Louisville and scanning the capsule reviews of restaurants was seriously misled by this problem. I tip my hat to Marty for making the stars mean something once again.

As an aside, I do agree with Doug that it is best to read the review rather than rely on the stars alone, but sometimes when you are visiting a city and only have access to the capsule reviews or don't have time to read the full reviews of all restaurants, the star rating is important.

[Robin Garr]

... Marty's review reads as though the place is "good". He then gives it the star rating that corresponds with "good". "Good" for Marty!

Seriously, this was my major pet peeve with Riegler. She refused to use the whole scope of the star spectrum. ...

Well, yeah. But I do think you're missing my point a little bit.

First, let's look at the CJ's explanation for the entire star-rating scheme:

**** outstanding
***1/2 excellent
*** very good
**1/2 good
** fair
* poor

Can anyone easily describe the difference between "good", "very good," and, in particular, "excellent" and "outstanding" - words that many might consider synonyms?

The list, frankly, is close to bogus and has no real meaning ... except when you look at a body of ratings and see how the 2 1/2-star ratings compare with each other.

And while I agree in general that Marty deserves praise for spreading out the ratings more than Reigler did, I do find that he surprisingly often writes reviews that, on a casual reading, don't seem to MATCH the stars. To me, that's what happened here. I'm not quibbling with his review at all. I'm quibbling with the star rating slightly, because - "good" or whatever - he generally reserves the **1/2 category for places where his visit or visits were marred by at least one fairly serious flaw. At Liang's, if we read his words, there's nothing in there to tell us why it fell below the *** level.

Again, I'm on board with just about everything you said except that - read across a body of work as well as within a single review - the words ought to match the stars.

As for Doug's comment about "letting go of it," I'm sorry, but I'm not just picking on the CJ here. As the portal to all things food, drink and dining in Louisville, reviewing the reviewers is one of the many things we do.

Can anyone easily describe the difference between "good", "very good," and, in particular, "excellent" and "outstanding" - words that many might consider synonyms?

The list, frankly, is close to bogus and has no real meaning ... except when you look at a body of ratings and see how the 2 1/2-star ratings compare with each other.

This is an excellent point, and the reason that I have advocated for a long time that the C-J adopt the star system of the NY Times where each star actually means something.