Soccer Moms Writing Angry Restaurant Reviews -- two perspectives

[Arch0wl]

Last night I started complaining to my girlfriend about the negative effect poorly-written, knee-jerk reviews are having on a local coffeeshop. I felt like they weren't qualified to be reviewers and shouldn't have been polluting the dialogue with their stupid remarks. In response, she remarked that she wouldn't want to read a "good" review at all; she'd rather read angry soccer moms writing reviews about Denny's.

The difference in the perspective came down to what, exactly, you think a review should be.

PERSPECTIVE 1: THE IDEAS ARE VALUABLE

It's a tragedy that these animals should have been released from their cage. Dialogue is a collection of ideas beyond ourselves, and their participation in dialogue pollutes it. Reviews are transcendent in that they communicate something beyond the person writing it by contributing ideas to the dialogue. The reviews can be executed poorly or stupidly, and we gain something from reading the well-written ones.

PERSPECTIVE 2: THE ACT OF WRITING IS VALUABLE

It's a miracle that someone so technologically illiterate should have such a spark of passion that they would figure out the hurdles of using Urbanspoon just to post an angry review of a restaurant. Their experience in itself is interesting. Moreover, it's wonderful thing that someone who would normally never write anything is being driven to write with the height of their emotion by this provocation. We should encourage this form of participation.

---------------------------------

Even though I obviously think my perspective is right, I'm not justified in thinking that. There is not a non-arbitrary factor on which I can say "this view is right", so ultimately it's a matter of perspective.

I'm interested in hearing what you think. As a side note, I suspect that people who believe #1 will be far more likely to ascribe universality to their view.

[Attractive]

The angry moms are still contributing ideas.

Your two choices suck.

[Reincarnate]

The kinds of people who have quick-trigger emotions/aren't that bright tend to bring on their own negative feedback when they go out. It's like when I go on Yelp and see someone who's given restaurants mostly low scores, but then you read what they say and it's all unintelligible garbage. Clearly, the problem isn't with the restaurants. If you're going to call the waitress at Friday's "a compleat bitchASS with gross tities" because she wouldn't watch your kids while they proceeded to make a huge mess at the table while you went back to your car to have a smoke, you don't have the right to blame the restaurant. Similarly, if you're an asshole who gets pissed off at the coffee baristas because you explained your order incorrectly or asked them repeatedly for unreasonable requests, you're also not very credible.

Some people are just hyperbolic and think that if what they order/taste isn't anything special, they berate it heavily instead of being neutral.

Personally I find that the better-written reviews tend to mirror the experiences I actually endure. The bad reviews are more entertaining to read, but they aren't necessarily realistic.

[Cavernio]

I don't know how you can have a 'dialogue beyond yourself' in regards to something so obviously subjective.