The critical condition

Ever since premiering in Chicago in 2006, Yelp has been the recipient of both ire and awe from business owners, journalists and anybody else who thinks about the Internet. It has been a heated topic of debate for restaurateurs, who either love it or hate it, depending on what people on Yelp have been saying about them. And it is also a source of debate for food writers, who have been forced to recognize—or not—the legions of Yelp’s amateur critics who appear to be taking a stab at their job.

Yelp’s aim was always to become a virtual, citywide water cooler of sorts, a place where you can read and write opinions about coffee shops, dry cleaners, newspapers, movies and everything else. But it has been particularly successful with restaurants—Yelp management estimates that 38 percent of the reviews are of an eating or nightlife establishment. Yelp isn’t the first place where people have been able to review a restaurant online, of course. Chowhound.com, the model for LTHForum.com, had amateurs obsessing over restaurants before the founders of Yelp even graduated from college. But whereas these food-specific sites attract a crowd that is particularly interested in (or downright obsessed with) eating and drinking, Yelp prides itself on being a forum for the everyman’s opinion.

In other words, the people using Yelp are not, and do not claim to be, experts. And in keeping with that stance, many Yelpers don’t follow the same rules that professional critics follow. In October 2007, The Wall Street Journal published an article about restaurants that give free food to Yelpers in exchange for positive reviews. And in browsing restaurant reviews on Yelp, it quickly becomes clear that many Yelpers seem to pride themselves on reviewing restaurants before anybody else.

This immediacy may be the biggest impact Yelp has had on the restaurant community. It’s not just restaurant owners who are reading these reviews closely; it’s restaurant critics. TOC took a small survey of local food writers working in print and found that Yelp, and sites like it, are slowly yet steadily changing the way restaurants are reviewed. Professional critics are reviewing restaurants faster, and publications are changing the way they cover restaurants in order to keep up with Yelp, et al.

“I definitely feel like the rules are different online,” Chicago magazine senior editor Jeff Ruby wrote in an e-mail. “There is a certain latitude, editorially, that we allow ourselves.” He was talking about Dish, the e-newsletter he co-writes with dining editor Penny Pollack. Chicago magazine has a strict policy of waiting six weeks before its restaurant critic, Dennis Ray Wheaton, visits a restaurant. But in Dish, Ruby and Pollack (who are not officially critics) will sometimes write a paragraph or so about their experience at a brand-new restaurant.

Chicago magazine is not the only publication that’s using online tools to cover restaurants faster. Its sister publication, the Chicago Tribune, has started to use a system whereby food writers will visit a restaurant in its infancy and file a “First Bite” for their blog, the Stew. But unlike Chicago magazine, the Tribune’s print policies have changed as well. In a telephone conversation, Tribune restaurant critic Phil Vettel said that whereas he used to give a restaurant more than two months before visiting—and then wait at least a month before making a return visit—he now makes his first visit after three or four weeks. That change in policy was a direct reaction to the speed with which websites were getting to restaurants. “It’s a faster world…people don’t wait around for information.” Besides, he says. “There’s something to be said for getting out the information right away.”

That’s certainly the policy of Newcity’s Michael Nagrant (who also contributes food coverage to TOC). He was the first to come out with a review of L2O (which he reviewed on opening night), Yats and Urban Belly. “It’s not in the spirit of competition with other outlets,” he says, noting that he sometimes reviews restaurants six months after they open. It’s “to try a place we’ve been waiting for [for] a long time, because we really think it is newsworthy, or because it’s a slow week.”

Pat Bruno of the Sun-Times also wrote that he doesn’t “feel any need to compete with these sites.” But his policy has been to give a restaurant at least two weeks before he visits, so, in some ways, he’s been competing all along. Over at the Reader, Mike Sula wrote that he and his writers have always given a restaurant at least a month before visiting and still do—though they’ll sometimes write a preview of their thoughts on their blog before a review comes out in print. “I don’t subscribe to the argument that restaurants charging full prices before having a reasonable amount of time to get off their training wheels are fair game for critics, professional or amateur,” he writes.

Time Out Chicago isn’t immune to the pressures of amateur online critics, either. We make every attempt to announce the opening of a restaurant in a timely manner on our blog and in print, and while we generally allow three weeks before visiting a restaurant for a starred review, we have occasionally offered early opinions on our blog.

Yet as much as food writers seem to be feeling the pressure from amateur critics, most of them (including the one writing this article) are reluctant to see them as very credible. Asked whether they see Yelpers, etc., as bona fide critics, most responded with a firm, loud “no”—despite the fact that we seem to be following in their footsteps.

“That’s the weird thing about the Web,” Ruby aptly wrote. “No one can agree on any rules.”

For more on Yelp and other online critics, read "Amateur hour" and check out our online critics' roundtable, both from our blog critics issue in January of 2008.