Nov 162010
 

Now that we’ve seen what Michelin thinks of the Chicago dining scene, we thought it might be interesting to see how those results stack up to how Chicago diners and reviewers have rated them on various sites. Apples-to-apples comparisons are hard because everyone has their own scale, but it’s still worth a look:

All web results current as of today. They’re obviously subject to change.

  11 Responses to “Michelin: Comparing ratings from around the Web”

  1. RT @ChicagoBites: [Post] Michelin: Comparing ratings from around the Web http://www.chicagobites.com/2010/11/comp

  2. Freakin Awesome! I love when I can combine my love of stats with anything. It’s like fantasy football for foodies!

  3. RT @ChicagoBites: [Post] Michelin: Comparing ratings from around the Web http://www.chicagobites.com/2010/11/comp

  4. Can we open this on google docs? I’m another stats dork and would like to sort ๐Ÿ™‚

  5. Made a separate copy for that purpose as any sort will affect the display on the site. Coming your way.

    -Tammy

  6. LOVE this!!! So much fun! Although I personally think you need to discount the Metromix ratings because they are not statistically significant enough. (i.e., very few people rating on Metromix.)

  7. If we’re going by that, Krista, then Michelin probably has the fewest number of people reporting behind those stars they dish out. ๐Ÿ™‚

  8. I think the main difference between Michelin and the other ratings revolves around expectation theory or a value proposition. Spending more money on a top restaurant and being disappointed at the preconceived perception of experience may factor into those lower ratings, potentially causing, for example, infrequent diners to Alinea to give low marks on, Urban Spoon.

  9. We love this brilliant comparison!!

  10. Thanks, Kate!

  11. I tend to agree, Brian. If you have no context for say, molecular gastronomy, you’re possibly going to walk away feeling weird about your meal.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.