Ruobin Gong writes:
Pete Wells, the renowned restaurant critic for the New York Times, announced his retirement earlier this year. During his twelve years of tenure, Wells reviewed hundreds of restaurants all over and surrounding the New York City area, from Michelin-starred establishments to old-time favorites, and to newer, relatively anonymous eateries. His piercing and often humorous reviews steered the opinions and choices of countless gastronomical enthusiasts, as they exerted unmeasurable influence on the fine dining landscape of New York and beyond. I have on more than one occasion relied on the expertise of Mr. Wells over the years, and have come to learn that the job of a food critic embodies a set of highly useful principles that are statistical in nature.
Replication and Coverage. To compose a review, Wells typically dines at a restaurant three times before writing anything. And every time he goes, he brings three friends. He would suggest (command) that each friend should order a different dish from every course, and would try from everyone’s appetizer, entrée and dessert plates. With four people, a minimum of three courses for each person, and all of that repeated three times, Wells would have sampled at least 36 dishes before writing a review (if he decides to write one at all). This laborious strategy ensures adequate coverage of the restaurant’s menu items and a reliable measurement of the overall dining experience. Sticking with the sampling frame and steering clear of whimsical departures is a challenge, Wells admits.
Importance Sampling. Readers expect from Wells commentaries on the most essential offerings on a restaurant’s menu. Therefore, he prioritizes staple dishes—those that are representative and are widely recognized to define the restaurant’s existence. On the other hand, daily specials may be skipped, as are a server’s professed “personal favorites” because of their transient nature.
Exploratory Analysis. Data collection is one thing, and the context in which the data are generated is just as important. Wells regularly conducts interviews with a restaurant’s owners, chefs, and sometimes staff members to check facts, to learn about the restaurant’s history, and the inspirations behind their culinary creations. These insights are particularly appreciated when the restaurant being reviewed is relatively new to the scene.
Prior Elicitation. Sometimes Wells reviews restaurants that specialize in a cuisine about which he has little knowledge or prior experience. In those cases, he would take upon himself to compensate for such deficit before his visit in order to pass fair and educated judgments. The methods involve visiting a number of other restaurants specializing in the same cuisine (the “reference meals”); judiciously reading up relevant literature; and resorting to the advice of people who grew up in those cuisines.
Random Initiations. Wells selects which restaurants to review himself, and those that get picked tend to be the ones that, according to him, “stand apart from the herd.” While there is no shortage of Michelin-star-studded establishments in his portfolio, Wells also writes abundantly about lesser-known places, including some that caught his eyes by serendipity. We could be speaking of thin omelets-on-the-griddle prepared right behind the restaurant’s window (Followsoshi’s Northern Chinese pancakes) or billows of smoke that could be mistaken for a house fire in the neighborhood (Forever Jerk’s Jamaican barbecue). Randomness is a delightful spice.
Bias Reduction. Restaurants understand the enormous effect that a renowned food critic could have on their fortune. The aspirational ones pay deliberate attention to the clientele showing up at their door every evening. In case an influential critic is spotted, the restaurant tends to extend preferential treatment, whether consciously or subconsciously. Wells understands perfectly that unwanted bias could result from a non-blind observation. Certain tricks for anonymity—pseudonyms for reservations and credit cards, for example—help in some circumstances, but would not get past restaurants that go the extra mile by distributing famous critics’ pictures to their staff in anticipation of undercover tactics. Wells also tries to do away with undue influence in his reviews, such as by discounting service entirely, but these efforts can only be so successful. As we know too well, once bias has been baked into the observation, it can be next to impossible to eliminate it entirely.
Influential Observations. Of all the 500 or so reviews that Wells wrote for the Times over the past decade, many were memorable, and a few rose to the level of sensational journalism. The pieces that enjoyed the most lasting attention have two defining characteristics. One, the restaurant typically already has an established reputation (one could say they are a high leverage point), and two, the evaluation would have to be shockingly poor (an unexpected response variable). Notable examples include the three Michelin-starred Per Se (whose bouillon was described as “bong water”) and Eleven Madison Park (stripped of all NYT star ratings after it elected to go vegan). Peter Luger, a 137-year-old Brooklyn steakhouse, was downgraded from a previous rating of two NYT stars to merely “satisfactory,” much to the delight of readers (replying to the verdict with a cheerful “finally”). The bombshell belongs to Guy Fieri’s Times Square restaurant, receiving a “poor” rating accompanied by a scathing review comprised of nothing but sarcastic queries. (The restaurant closed its doors a few years after opening.)
Professional Responsibility. The job of a food critic is easily romanticized. One’s duty seemingly consists of visiting the buzziest (or soon to be the buzziest) restaurants, tasting delicious food in the company of friends and on the company’s dime, nitpicking at minor imperfections that could only be described as “first-world problems,” all the while being generously compensated both financially and professionally. The truth is, to become the people’s trusted voice on a subject that is the quintessence of human existence, it takes nothing less than mental discipline, strategic planning, artistic intuition and an impeccable work ethic. In his retirement announcement, Mr. Wells revealed that what prompted his decision to depart from his post was a myriad of health issues he had been experiencing as a result of his professionally mandated imbibing night after night. A food critic, much like a statistician, could not deliver high-quality analyses, win confidence from readers, or garner respect from their industry peers were they not to consistently and unyieldingly observe the principles of professional practice, sometimes to their own detriment (and in Mr. Wells’ case, at the expense of his physical health). Hard work and difficult choices take place behind the scenes, but these unseen efforts confer value upon a profession whose expertise others seek.
Footnote
The sources of this essay include Pete Wells’ retirement announcement [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/16/dining/pete-wells-steps-down-food-critic.html] and exit interview [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/19/podcasts/pete-wells-check-please.html] published in the New York Times, the AMA (“Ask Me Anything”) session that Wells hosted on Reddit (r/nyc) in spring 2024 [https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1bux2t1/im_pete_wells_a_food_critic_for_the_new_york/], and Wells’ many restaurant critiques in the Times, including comments from the readers.