Star gazing

I thought I'd better explain my star rating when it comes to restaurants.  It's a simple range of one to five stars, one being piss poor, five being stonkingly good.

I do my best not to go to the sorts places where I reckon will end up with a one-star, so for the sake of my stomach I hope there won't be too many on here.  I'd expect most will be in the three-to-four star region.  Anyway, here's a quick guide to my thinking.  NB: As management, I reserve the right to change these rankings arbitrarily and more importantly appoint or deduct points as my whimsy takes me (power corrupts, absolute power etc etc.)

* - Ugh
** - In the words of Mr Creosote "Better...get a bucket I'm going to throw up"
*** - Not bad at all but nothing too special, middle of the road
**** - Better than average.  For a local restaurant it'd be considered the dogs doodoos, for somewhere posh, it's probably missing that little something
***** - Oh so good.  Not to be missed and full of superlatives

Comments

[Olivia]

It's interesting that, in capturing the full spectrum in 5 stars, there are only two choices left to represent everything from good to perfect. That's the area in which I find I want the most dynamic range. As a result, I actually shifted my scale to collapse the low end, with my 1 equating to your 3. On the principle that, if you fail, it doesn't matter by how much, I'm giving 0 to the places you'd give 1s and 2s. I'd be curious how often you have writen about places to which you only give 1 or 2 stars? (I'm still looking through your old reviews.)

[Silverbrow]

Olivia
You're absolutely right, as far as I can find I never used the 1 star and used 2 star only once when reviewing a now defunct restaurant called Zvika.

I like your system as it gives so much scope for you to be clear about the type of restaurant you're reviewing and more importantly what you thought of it. I may well be over at some point to nab your ranking system.

[Olivia]

Thanks! I just hope it proves useful. You're welcome to it!