"Cheap" tag? [Site]
2006 Dec 16
A rating for value would be great. Even though I'm one of the people who suggested a cheap tag, that's a much better idea.
Places like the Horn of Africa will get enough of a flood of 'value' ratings to make them stand out as genuinely 'cheap' rather than just 'good value,' I'd imagine.
An example of how it might be useful: the East India Company gets criticised for being too expensive here and there, but: given how much I like the food, how nice it is, and how little I have to spend for so much food, I think it's a good value. I spend much more at buffet-free Indian places. Others might disagree, yes, but they're welcome to vote against me.
That said, Moni Mahal has a cheaper buffet, but I think it sucks. Hence, no star for value from me.
I'd be curious to see how the really pricy places would fare. If I dropped a pile of cash on a meal and felt it was worth every penny, I'd enjoy rating it as an 'excellent value.'
And it would discourage a lot of ratings being heaped on places that're cheap and nothing else. Tim Horton's is cheap, but I'm sort of meh on its being a good value when I can get a much better sandwich elsewhere for not much more money. Ubiquitous and cheap does not necessarily mean good value.
Places like the Horn of Africa will get enough of a flood of 'value' ratings to make them stand out as genuinely 'cheap' rather than just 'good value,' I'd imagine.
An example of how it might be useful: the East India Company gets criticised for being too expensive here and there, but: given how much I like the food, how nice it is, and how little I have to spend for so much food, I think it's a good value. I spend much more at buffet-free Indian places. Others might disagree, yes, but they're welcome to vote against me.
That said, Moni Mahal has a cheaper buffet, but I think it sucks. Hence, no star for value from me.
I'd be curious to see how the really pricy places would fare. If I dropped a pile of cash on a meal and felt it was worth every penny, I'd enjoy rating it as an 'excellent value.'
And it would discourage a lot of ratings being heaped on places that're cheap and nothing else. Tim Horton's is cheap, but I'm sort of meh on its being a good value when I can get a much better sandwich elsewhere for not much more money. Ubiquitous and cheap does not necessarily mean good value.
2007 Jan 22
Hey, I do think that is a great idea... a rating for value!
But I also remember mentioning deals, which I meant like "Tuesday all you can eat wings for $5.00" So maybe we could have a link for "great value" ... but some how we could also work in a specials rating...
I dont know if that makes sense, or if that would fit under value.
Because I know that 7 days a week I am looking for a pitcher and wings deal, but never know what is going on any night of the week anywhere so end up paying full price.
But I also remember mentioning deals, which I meant like "Tuesday all you can eat wings for $5.00" So maybe we could have a link for "great value" ... but some how we could also work in a specials rating...
I dont know if that makes sense, or if that would fit under value.
Because I know that 7 days a week I am looking for a pitcher and wings deal, but never know what is going on any night of the week anywhere so end up paying full price.
warby
Being half-Swiss, the idea of tagging cheap deals appeals to me too. I've always been more forgiving of food quality when prices are good. Sure, a true "Foodie" cares only about the food -- price, atmosphere, service, etc are all secondary concerns. But even as secondary concerns, they're sometimes worth taking note of.
So the next problem is, how to do it in a fair and accurate way? This has been the roadblock for me. "Cheapness" is highly subjective (and even variable at a certain vendor -- the buffet might be a good deal but not the menu items, or maybe lunches are well priced but dinner will break you). And to complicate things more, people usually want "value" (a good quality to price ratio) rather than cheapness. Suddenly a vendor that offers good "value" might not actually have low prices. Similarly, a vendor that offers "cheap" food might not have anything at all worth eating.
And again, these are all subjective. Sure, I could add a "Cheap" tag, but then I'd keep getting messages from people saying, "I had edamame at Restaurant X for only $2.95 -- give them the Cheap tag!" even though their General Tso's chicken runs for $18.95. So, do I add the tag or not? AAAGGGHH! :-)
The "Cheap Eats Ottawa" book and website (www.cheapeatsottawa.com) demonstrates the same problem. They list places that offer breakfast under $5, lunch under $10, and dinner under $15. If you're willing to lower your standards (or your appetite) enough, most restaurants will fit this description! That said, they do try to focus on restaurants that better fit the "cheap eats" epithet. This requires expert human intervention, because it is... subjective.
The only reasonable approach for this site is to add another dimension of voting. Allow people to click on a dollar sign (next to the "gold star" and "push pin" icons at the top right of a vendor page) to indicate vendors that they consider to provide excellent value. It isn't perfect, but it's the only fair way I can think of. Then, each vendor can have an "Excellent Value" rating...
What do you think?