AngerManagement wrote:
While there is more and more interest, I find it hard these days to read much of it as I find that in many cases the writers do little more than engage in plagiarism and outright cut and past from others. In many cases that "other " knows very little as well and thus misinformation is at an all time high... many food critics once were the masters of slippery review's, I think many of those doing the local rags and others publications that now do COFFEE have pushed the Food Critics off their perch...
... to be honest, there are a couple of what i see as 'faults' in them attributing stars for coffee quality: firstly what are the qualifications of their reviewers - usually [& am pretty sure i saw a picture of the bunch] they're young journalists, who while they might like wearing black & hanging out at cafes [if you're a young journo, there can't be much better job than that], may or may not know what makes a good coffee. The second thing is - if you're doing that many cafes, how can you assure consistency - ie they presumably have one journo do 15-20, another one do another 15-20 etc, etc, so where is the calibration? And thirdly, the sponsorship angle - personally I find Jeff's comment above [& the associated 3-star] a bit scary...
