Philosophy

I thought I’d take a moment to explain my philosophy on restaurant reviews, or, more specifically, on the types of restaurants that I’ll review on this blog.

Obviously, I’ll review the “top” restaurants in New York — those that are highly regarded and well-rated by others.  As I explain on the about page, I’m generally looking to review really nice restaurants, looking for vegetarian options.  But I usually won’t review a few types of restaurants:

  • brunch restaurants
  • “ethnic” restaurants — Indian, Thai, Japanese/Sushi, Ethiopian
  • “Basic” Italian/pizza restaurants

My thinking is that these places typically have a fairly predictable menu.  Eggs, pad thai, cheese ravioli… you know the drill.

With places like these, my rule is that I’ll only review them here if they offer something interesting or unusual, above and beyond the “standard fare”.  And, because I’m focused on lunch/dinner options, I go to a restaurant for breakfast or brunch, I won’t give it a star rating.

Similarly, I generally won’t give star ratings to places outside of New York.  It’s harder to compare across cities, so for now, only New York restaurants will get star ratings.

What do you think?  Are there particular types of restaurants that I should or shouldn’t be focusing on?  Anything to add/remove/change?

What are your thoughts?