The local free (read: crappy) rag, City Pages votes Olive Garden the best Italian in the Twin Cities. Every. Year. They also vote Perkins the best breakfast. Christ.
Four of the past five years, the City Pages readers voted Buca as best Italian. The judgement is suspect, but understandable.
The City Pages staff (i.e., Dara Moskowitz) has far more sense, and this year named Broder's the best cheap Italian; they picked Ristorante Luci as best not-cheap three times since 2001. I have to agree on the latter -- dang fine food, that. I've never eaten at Broder's, which brings up my real point:
Really, what do you expect from reader polls? The winner is going to be the one that the most people have been to without barfing. Buca seats a gazillion times more people than Luci (which holds, I think, about 30 people at a time), so Buca's going to win a poll through sheer numbers. The only reason Olive Garden didn't win probably has to do with reader demographics. Ask me for a good expensive Italian place, and I'll rave about Luci. Ask me for a good cheap Italian spot, and I'll stammer for a moment and eventually offer that Fazoli's isn't a bad option I guess.
Of course, in 2004 Olive Garden won "cheap" and Buca won "not cheap" in the readers' poll. Oh, that expensive Buca.
Then again, most magazines that include reader polls manage to refrain from gushing about the pedantic people's picks. I perfer more sarcasm in my magazine write-ups of the choices of the masses.
You're welcome. I'm always happy to supply facts when they're sorely needed.
What do you expect, though? Name an Italian restaurant in the Twin Cities that 80% of [City Pages readers | the general population] has actually been to other than the Olive Garden and Buca. It doesn't make them "retards" -- it just means that each of the dozens of options people voted for over Buca were overwhelmed by the sheer number of #2 Buca votes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dancing_serpent
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-14 10:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-15 06:06 am (UTC)Actually, no.
Date: 2006-03-15 06:26 pm (UTC)The City Pages staff (i.e., Dara Moskowitz) has far more sense, and this year named Broder's the best cheap Italian; they picked Ristorante Luci as best not-cheap three times since 2001. I have to agree on the latter -- dang fine food, that. I've never eaten at Broder's, which brings up my real point:
Really, what do you expect from reader polls? The winner is going to be the one that the most people have been to without barfing. Buca seats a gazillion times more people than Luci (which holds, I think, about 30 people at a time), so Buca's going to win a poll through sheer numbers. The only reason Olive Garden didn't win probably has to do with reader demographics. Ask me for a good expensive Italian place, and I'll rave about Luci. Ask me for a good cheap Italian spot, and I'll stammer for a moment and eventually offer that Fazoli's isn't a bad option I guess.
Of course, in 2004 Olive Garden won "cheap" and Buca won "not cheap" in the readers' poll. Oh, that expensive Buca.
Then again, most magazines that include reader polls manage to refrain from gushing about the pedantic people's picks. I perfer more sarcasm in my magazine write-ups of the choices of the masses.
Re: Actually, no.
Date: 2006-03-15 09:23 pm (UTC)I don't expect reader polls to exhibit refined tastes, but I am always disappointed/surprised at the depths to which the local retards will stoop.
Re: Actually, no.
Date: 2006-03-15 09:35 pm (UTC)What do you expect, though? Name an Italian restaurant in the Twin Cities that 80% of [City Pages readers | the general population] has actually been to other than the Olive Garden and Buca. It doesn't make them "retards" -- it just means that each of the dozens of options people voted for over Buca were overwhelmed by the sheer number of #2 Buca votes.