Some Interesting Points...

A few days ago, I was thinking about the fact that restaurant reviews are completely subjective, not just because people have different tastes and preferences, but also because every experience is unique.  Bobby may eat a restaurant and have a wonderful time, and Sally may go to the same restaurant the following week and have a terrible experience.  Or in my case, I may go to a restaurant one day and have an amazing time and then re-visit the same institution a couple of months later and have a less than stellar experience.

There have been two restaurants that I patronized (and reviewed) within the last few months.  (For now, these restaurants will be anonymous, but I may identify them in a future update.) The first time that I ate at these particular places, I had a good experience, which resulted in favorable reviews.  However, on the second go-round, both places were less than satisfactory.

If the experiences I had the 2nd time had occurred on my initial visit, the reviews would have been less glowing (we're talking ratings of an entire smiley face or more lower). In fact, if these travesties had happened the first time, there might not have been a 2nd visit.

So, I pose to you, my faithful readers, a question: Should I blog a follow-up if a 2nd visit yields a review that is drastically different than the first?

Comments

[Russell T.]

I say yes. Helps to give an accurate description of what to expect when visiting these places.

[The Blackout Blog]

I vote for additional review. And if a restaurant is consistent, I think that should me mentioned as well. More data = better (c'mon, science geek!) ;-)

[Xtina G.]

Do it! Let 'em have it :P