How Buffalo Chow Rates Restaurants: Our Balanced Scale & Philosophy
Buffalo Chow's editors have enjoyed amazing meals - and bad ones - all across Western New York, the United States, and the world. We bring broad palates and a wealth of experience to every restaurant we visit, equally appreciating everything from spicy wings and rich desserts to fresh sushi and elaborately prepared formal meals. Our reviews discuss restaurants in depth, noting the collective perspectives of two or more members of our dining group, but we also issue brief star ratings as a quick summary of our findings. Ratings are issued strictly on merit as an evaluation of the overall dining experience, considering factors including food quality, quantity, culinary creativity, service, ambience and value for the dollar, with the heaviest emphasis on food quality.
To help readers understand how we assign stars, what follows are the guidelines we use when determining ratings. They are preceded by an explanation of our rating philosophy and general expectations.
Our Rating Philosophy:
Having studied product and service rating systems for literally decades, we chose the zero- to four-star system for Buffalo Chow reviews, and went with clear, specific meanings for the stars. However, since four-star systems are used by many publications, it is critical to understand how our stars' definitions differ from the ones employed by others.
Some publications (such as The Buffalo News) set one star as "poor" and four stars as "extraordinary," yet almost always award three- to four-star ratings, suggesting that almost everything that receives stars ranges from "good" to "extraordinary." Other publications (such as The Los Angeles Times and New York Times) have four-star scales in which one star equals "good" and four stars means "outstanding," with no stars equalling "poor to satisfactory."
These systems strike us as problematic for different reasons. On one hand, a rating system seems positively overloaded when every star from 1 to 4 means good, great, or fantastic. On the other, a system of stars that range from "poor" to "extraordinary" gets distorted when virtually everything is deemed great. The very meaning of a four-star rating can be debased when it's issued too often, making the "extraordinary" seem ordinary.
Our rating system isn't a replacement for reading our full reviews, but it was designed to be fair, putting readers' needs for meaningful stars ahead of restauranteurs' desires for seemingly high ratings. In our system, the words "extraordinary" and "awful" are used on the rare occasions where they're merited, and words like "okay," "good," "very good" and "excellent" all get used, as they have distinct places on the scale. The very middle of our scale (2.5/2 Stars) is one of its most significant points. At 2.5 Stars, we'd go back willingly, but at 2, we probably wouldn't. The higher a restaurant goes above 2.5 stars, the better; the lower it goes below 2, the worse we felt that it was, and the less chance we'd ever have of going back again. We believe that reviews should form a rough bell curve, rather than spiking at the high end.
One final note regards our philosophy regarding traditional versus experimental versus "high" or "low" cuisines: every one of these types of offerings qualifies for both our highest and lowest ratings. Living in Western New York, we're well aware that seemingly simple sandwiches and "bar foods" can be highly distinctive from place to place and occasionally mind-blowing; similarly, having eaten sushi at the world's most famous fish market and at Buffalo supermarkets, we're also aware that there are differences between superlative and awful raw fish. Thus, the chef's skill in the kitchen is important, but so are the materials she or he works with. Similarly, while we appreciate the concepts behind molecular gastronomy, fusion cooking, and slow food, we'd take four-star chocolate ice cream any day over a two-star organic parsley sorbet. Restaurants do best when they focus on making truly great food that excels when compared to similar competitors; creativity is great, but no substitute for superior execution.
Our Rating Guidelines:
(4 Stars): Life-changing overall. Very close to flawless from beginning to end - a rare dining experience that through superior across-the-board execution and/or innovation sets a standard for all others of its kind. Our four-star ratings are by no means exclusively the province of fine or experimental dining establishments - inexpensive, amazingly delicious meals served properly in clean, simple settings could just as easily qualify. Thus far, we have not issued a four-star rating to any restaurant in Western New York; having dined at such places outside the area, we very much look forward to the day when they are deservedly numerous here. We will not issue four-star ratings merely for the sake of doing so: they must be earned.
(3.5 Stars): Excellent overall. So strong an example of food quality and/or a complete dining experience for the dollar that it serves as a high water mark for its genre. Food sampled must have been universally good to great, with more great than good. The service must also have been at least good, preferably great.
(3 Stars): Very good overall. Three-star meals are ones that we found to be very satisfying from start to finish, without any major hiccups. Food sampled was a mix of good and great for the price, leaning more towards good than great; one or two things such as an individual item, service, or pricing may have been a little off.
(2.5 Stars): Good overall. At this level, a restaurant has done just enough to satisfy for the price, with dishes and service that range generally from okay to good, possibly with a couple of exceptions. Also includes restaurants that are polar, offering a mix of great and bad or okay food and service experiences, or good food at the wrong prices.
(2 Stars): Okay overall. A restaurant on this side of the center mark is one that we probably wouldn't return to visit again voluntarily. Food and service struck us as only passable given other local options.
(1 Star): Bad overall. We don't use the word "bad" lightly when describing our experiences at a restaurant, but on occasion, we'll have a meal at a place that is seriously offensive to our senses of good taste - an affront to our reasonable expectations of food and/or service quality. Amateur-level food preparation, poor service service, outrageously high prices, and/or other poor elements of the experience that are within the management's control could individually or collectively be to blame.
(0 Stars): Awful. We have never issued this rating, and hope never to have to do so. As the diametrical opposite of the 4 Star rating, 0 Stars suggests standard-setting terrible dining.
No Rating: Prior to issuing a rating, our goal is to sample a representative collection of items at the restaurants we visit. This may take place over one large group visit, or over multiple small group visits, depending on the type of restaurant, scope of menu, and other factors. The lack of a rating does not indicate that we haven't visited a restaurant or that we don't have an opinion on it, but rather that we've decided to hold off on rendering a final judgment for the time being.
This article was last updated on May 31, 2009.
