The Good Food Guide recently announced its winners for this year in a ceremony at the Theatre Royal. Yes, The Good Food Guide. Remember it? The Sportsman in Seasalter, Kent, won restaurant of the year, joining Ynyshir in Mid-Wales, Moor Hall in Lancashire and L’Enclume in Cumbria on the list of ‘world class’ restaurants.
This was the second iteration of the new form of the guide, which was revived last year. These days The Good Food Guide is an app, rather than a book, but it still relies on a network of tip-offs, followed up by paid, independent reviewers. ‘The question “Would you go back here and spend your own money?” is usually the best indicator of whether a restaurant deserves to be included,’ says Elizabeth Carter, one of the editors.
A few days beforehand, the Michelin Guide had released its Bibs Gourmand, which reward good food at more affordable prices. Many find them a more reliable guide to restaurants than stars. Among the 20 new entries for 2024 were the Bull at Charlbury, The Loch & The Tyne in Old Windsor and The Mulberry in Falmouth. Michelin, too, relies on its squad of enigmatic anonymous inspectors.
Michelin, The Good Food Guide, newspaper reviews: the recommendation scene has a distinctly ’90s flavour. We were meant to have swapped these old-fashioned sources of information for algorithmically generated recommendations on social media, but expertise is proving surprisingly stubborn.
It reflects a growing mistrust of this kind of user review. Social media influencers post gorgeous pictures of meals, but it can be unclear what deal they have with the restaurants they are recommending. Sometimes they may have been paid for their coverage.
Google and Tripadvisor scores are notoriously unreliable, as the mischievous journalist Oobah Butler proved in 2017 when he tricked Tripadvisor into thinking ‘The Shed at Dulwich’, in reality just his garden shed, with pictures of shaving foam and other household products made to look like haute cuisine, was the number-one- ranked restaurant in London. Butler got the idea because he had previously worked as a paid reviewer, writing restaurant reviews for £10 a pop. Even when money is not changing hands, restaurateurs will get their friends and family to pile in with positive reviews.
The internet also heralded new online food sites, such as Eater and The Infatuation, which promised to revolutionise reviewing with more detailed lists – by area, cuisine, mood – but they have struggled, too. Eater London, which had become a valuable source of thoughtful recommendations for less obvious spots, closed this time last year.
In 2024, what’s common to all the best – and enduring – recommendation services is that there is not a robot in sight. When it comes to eating out, diners still crave personal recommendations, made by real people rather than an algorithm sifting through clicks and stars.
A robot cannot be annoyed by over-friendly service, or aggrieved to have been upsold the sparkling water, or find the bream ever-so-slightly overcooked. It cannot find the music too quiet or the lights too bright. It is a comforting thought: while there is no accounting for taste, it cannot be left to accountants, either.
The Good Food Guide recently announced its winners for this year in a ceremony at the Theatre Royal. Yes, The Good Food Guide. Remember it? The Sportsman in Seasalter, Kent, won restaurant of the year, joining Ynyshir in Mid-Wales, Moor Hall in Lancashire and L’Enclume in Cumbria on the list of ‘world class’ restaurants.
This was the second iteration of the new form of the guide, which was revived last year. These days The Good Food Guide is an app, rather than a book, but it still relies on a network of tip-offs, followed up by paid, independent reviewers. ‘The question “Would you go back here and spend your own money?” is usually the best indicator of whether a restaurant deserves to be included,’ says Elizabeth Carter, one of the editors.
A few days beforehand, the Michelin Guide had released its Bibs Gourmand, which reward good food at more affordable prices. Many find them a more reliable guide to restaurants than stars. Among the 20 new entries for 2024 were the Bull at Charlbury, The Loch & The Tyne in Old Windsor and The Mulberry in Falmouth. Michelin, too, relies on its squad of enigmatic anonymous inspectors.
Michelin, The Good Food Guide, newspaper reviews: the recommendation scene has a distinctly ’90s flavour. We were meant to have swapped these old-fashioned sources of information for algorithmically generated recommendations on social media, but expertise is proving surprisingly stubborn.
It reflects a growing mistrust of this kind of user review. Social media influencers post gorgeous pictures of meals, but it can be unclear what deal they have with the restaurants they are recommending. Sometimes they may have been paid for their coverage.
Google and Tripadvisor scores are notoriously unreliable, as the mischievous journalist Oobah Butler proved in 2017 when he tricked Tripadvisor into thinking ‘The Shed at Dulwich’, in reality just his garden shed, with pictures of shaving foam and other household products made to look like haute cuisine, was the number-one- ranked restaurant in London. Butler got the idea because he had previously worked as a paid reviewer, writing restaurant reviews for £10 a pop. Even when money is not changing hands, restaurateurs will get their friends and family to pile in with positive reviews.
The internet also heralded new online food sites, such as Eater and The Infatuation, which promised to revolutionise reviewing with more detailed lists – by area, cuisine, mood – but they have struggled, too. Eater London, which had become a valuable source of thoughtful recommendations for less obvious spots, closed this time last year.
In 2024, what’s common to all the best – and enduring – recommendation services is that there is not a robot in sight. When it comes to eating out, diners still crave personal recommendations, made by real people rather than an algorithm sifting through clicks and stars.
A robot cannot be annoyed by over-friendly service, or aggrieved to have been upsold the sparkling water, or find the bream ever-so-slightly overcooked. It cannot find the music too quiet or the lights too bright. It is a comforting thought: while there is no accounting for taste, it cannot be left to accountants, either.