In his food and wine columnist hat, the LAT's David Shaw has had it with the Zagat guide ratings for Los Angeles restaurants.
Zagat is enormously successful and enormously influential a veritable bible for tourists, business travelers and local residents alike. But how can you trust "surveyors" as Zagat calls its voters who choose as the best restaurants in all of Greater Los Angeles some restaurants that aren't even the best in their own neighborhoods?(edited)
My complaint is Zagat's tendency to ridiculously overrate many restaurants. This year it's worse than ever...
Shaw goes out and samples some of the restaurants rated highly in the new Zagat and comes back disappointed. In fairness, he does give Zagat L.A. editor Merrill Shindler a chance to explain how the ratings are done, and it's pretty lame. Shaw's Bottom line: use Zagat for phone numbers and addresses, but not for the rankings.
Why bother with Zagat? Nuthin' beats a Double Double!
Posted by: BobfromPlaya at October 15, 2003 11:09 PMBobfromPlaya, you must also double as a photog, with such splendid taste!
Posted by: Angry Photog at October 16, 2003 11:23 AMAngry, is there anyhing so exquisite, so indisputably, penultimately perfect? And, dude, they make 'em protein style, so even Dr. Atkins would agree!
Posted by: BobfromPlaya at October 16, 2003 02:56 PM

Zagat describes not so much reality, but reality as tourists imagine it to be. And even given that qualifier, the esteem of Katsu remains a mystery.
Posted by: joseph at October 15, 2003 03:36 PM