Here’s a way for state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to save the taxpayers money: Instead of chasing down companies that create phony online restaurant reviews, just tell eatery customers to avoid any place described as “amazing” — or, as it usually pops up on Yelp, MenuPages, TripAdvisor and OpenTable: AMAZING!!!
Most anonymous online “reviews” — whether over-the-top favorable or savagely harsh — are rubbish even when they’re real. Diners with an IQ greater than that of seaweed know it.
Restaurateurs and publicists know it, too. But they hire the fluff factories anyway, not only to hype a new place but to offset slime-throwing by competitors, vindictive ex-employees, and embittered ex-lovers of owners and chefs.
Schneiderman’s socked 19 phony-review factories with $350,000 in fines. But I see no letup in “AMAZING,” “PERFECT” and “UNFORGETTABLE” postings.
Since the penalties were announced, opentable.com “reviewers” have described Quality Italian (a place I happen to like) as “GREAT,” “delicious,” “unique,” “FABULOUS” and “YUM.” One found it superior to four-star Eleven Madison Park and Jean-Georges, a true feat for a restaurant best known for chicken parmigiana shaped like a pizza.
Eater.com’s “Adventures in Shilling” feature ridicules cases of apparent flackery (e.g., “Shill probability: 95 percent.”) They’re LOL-easy to spot for anyone with an eighth-grade reading level.
Yet the New York Times apparently needed a team of scholars to ferret them out. Two years ago, the paper tapped a team of Cornell University linguists to identify “strong deceptive indicators” for reviews of restaurants, hotels and books.
Well, let me save them the trouble.
A June 9 Yelp posting by one “Kari G” had this to say of Matsuharu Morimoto’s Tribeca Canvas:
“Great spot! A for ambience, service, and of course the food! . . . We ordered small plates . . . profiteroles . . . AMAZING!!!!”
This was shortly before Morimoto pulled the plug on the near-empty place, which critics ripped to shreds and which the most forgiving young New Yorkers shunned by the millions.
Or, how about this March 12 “review” on MenuPages of train-wreck Cafe Tallulah:
“What a wonderful addition to the UWS! . . . [We] were so thrilled with our first dining experience . . . Cocktails were AMAZING!”
This was weeks before Tallulah replaced its second head chef in as many months, after parting ways with the original chef and throwing out her whole menu.
Of Guy’s American Kitchen — Guy Fieri’s 500-seat Times Square fiasco that sets a new benchmark for zero-star hilarity — an Aug. 26 posting on TripAdvisor stated:
“After reading all the bad reviews my husband and I went in with very low expectations. We were extremely satisfied with the taste of everything on our plates . . . the ribs were amazing. It was great to hear [from the manager] that Guy is very involved with the day-to-day business of the place.”
Betcha he is!
Less amusing are cruel postings by those with axes to grind who hide behind anonymity or fake names. Responsible sites like eater.com and grubstreet.com yank the most scurrilous postings. But “reviews” accusing male chefs of fathering a waitress’ baby and owners of running drug dens can linger online far too long.
The hit-jobs typically start with a scene-setter like, “My girlfriends wanted to drink me into a coma for my birthday, so we chose [trendy Meatpacking District brasserie] based on what we’d read . . .” Then the cesspool flows.
The fine BLT chain has been victimized often. A 2009 citysearch.com mugging of BLT Prime began by saying the writer was a big fan of Wolfgang’s steakhouse and hoped BLT would be as good. Instead, it was a “huge disappointment — for great steak and service, go to Wolfgang’s.” Now, who might have been behind this comparison?
The great BLT Steak on East 57th Street, according to a citysearch.com “reviewer,” was a “nightmare . . . be sure to avoid the spiky-haired, skinny manager at all costs.”
And at BLT Fish, a waiter was accused of serving “unsanitary food,” including human hair, in a “SARCASTIC” and “REMORSELESS” manner. The poor fellow was identified only by first name, but one uncommon enough to make him recognizable to future employers.
That posting has been up for more than a year. Schneiderman could do the public a real service by tracking down authors who get away with defamation.
That would be AMAZING, but overdue.