le cirque-should be called le short

I'm thinking josh must have been in a hurry while writing this section. How else can you explain the complete disregard for detail? It's of if this is the case,but Josh, please give us some sort of warning. The Tiger book report i mentioned before (let's see if we can incoporate that into each blog) was longer than this.

First course notes: This review is effective in that it conveys the critics overall feelings,but it leaves me wanting more. I was also kind of ashamed that I did indeed know Richard form TC 4. This gives me that same kind of guilty feeling I get when watching the new 90210-that Adriana is such a bitch!

Second Course notes: Again, this review is short,but it does get the job done. It also helps paint a picture of the author in Spain. I'd elaborate,but it's in bad taste fo rthe review ot be longer than the original work.

Third Course notes: I'm not sure what's so egregious (big word) about poached chicken,but the critic seems to have major issues with it. I do have to give him props-he makes it sound grosser than Beef Stroganoff night at Beta Sig. Nice detail-and thank you for mentioining that it was restaraunt week. I was wondering how you could afford it after all those sucker bets you made.

Dessert Notes: Again, this seemed a bit rushed,but the 3 sentences did the job so I can't complain. I really enjoyed the football comparison. Nice use of imagery Josh.

Overall thoughts: Well, As I keep saying, this review could have been a lot longer. The Lack of quantity kind of hindered my creative abilities as well. but the quality was there-now we just need to see more of it. Overall, this review was enjoyable, but on the shorter side and left me kind of confused (that's what she said.) Personally I'd compare to to Dude Where's My Car (that's a good thing in my book). I''m also not sure why supposed is in quaotation marks near the end of the review. The sentence reads Basically, you have the opportunity to eat at the “supposed” best restaurants in the city for $35/person. Shouldn't the "" be around best, not supposed. It's kind of like "Why would JERRY bring anything vs why would Jerry bring aything, for all you seinfeld fans". On to the scores

Usefulness: 2-Useful recommendation in that i don't really want to goto this place, but I still don't fully understand why.

Value Added: 5- funny how this worked out. Most places loved this place. Josh provided a different view on it. Gotta give him credit for that.

Decipherability: 4-Very easy to understand. That's all there really is so say.

Humor/ Enjoyment Factor: 1- Maybe it's because it was rushed, but this particular blog had less humor than The Shawshank Redemption. Nothing about it really stuck out at all. Yea, it got the point accross,but I'm looking for entertainment as well. Sorry Critic.

Overall Score: 12/20.

Comments and suggestions and welcomed!

Nougatine: July 24th, 2008

Well, this was Josh's first review. It is being reviewed 2 months after it was first published, so hopefully we will be able to see how far Josh has come as a blogger.

This blog was full of both a food lover's expertise and a novice blogger's inexperience. I felt Josh did a nice job of describing the mood of the dinner, and was clear about what dishes he liked and what dishes he did not. However, he shared a few details about the individual meal we could have done without and at times was a bit unclear regarding the details of what disappointed him.

First course notes: Pros-good overall description of the dish.
Cons- didn't go into enough detail regarding the soup. Also, too much supplementary info-we don't care about the waiter's exact wording-could have just said, brought out complimentary "insert dish here." We don't need to know he made you feel good. If I go to Nougatine, I won't say to myself, gee the waiter made Bronstein feel good, I hope he does the same for me. After typing that out,it actually sounds kind of creepy. I digress.

Second course notes: I really enjoyed this part of the blog. Josh made me feel like I actually sampled a bit of his salad. Most importantly,he did it succinctly, without the fluff of the previous paragraph. Touche, critic.

Third course notes: I'll be honest, this part left me wanting a bit more. I had some questions as to why the dish didn't meet his expectations. What made him expect so much in the first place? Did the menu portray it to be something else? Regarding the Salmon: tell us a bit more-undercooked can be loosely interpretated. Everyone has their own tastes-share with us what you like and consider to be sufficient, so that we may see how this matches up or falls short. You're the expert. make us see why this wasn't up to par. Some detail would be appreciated. My book report on tigers in third grade went into more detail, and I didn't even really read the book.

Fourth course notes: A Marked improvement. Again, I'd like to know a little more about the Chicken-most people like a large slice. But, to his credit,this is a bit nit-picky. Josh did a nice job describing the plating and tastes of this particular dish. I am however, curious about the critics fascination with white asparagus.


Fifth course notes: A simple review for what appears to be a simple,yet efficient desert. Simple and efficient is also how I'd rate this portion. It certainly got he job done describing the flavor and the quality of the sweets,but it seems like he mailed this last bit in much like Ashton Kutcher mailed in his performance in "what happens in vegas." That's really a whole other blog though-the guy clearly doesn't care about acting or movie choice anymore. He was much cooler as Kelos on that 70's show. Of course , he's now banging Demi Moore, so at least he's got something going.

Overall, this was a solid first effort by Josh. He did a nice job describing some of the dishes,but he did leave some detail to be desired,and at times bored me with his own personal details. Also, part's of the blog lacked creativity and flow,and kind of reminded me of the 2008 Minnesota Vikings offense (any AP owner knows what I'm talking about). But I don't want to go to hard on our friend.....this is a solid first effort.

Scores:

Usefulness-4. I feel I understand the place pretty well,and would like to give it a shot.

Value Added: 3- This is not very unique compared to several of the major food rating sites on the internet. I found several similar dishes and comments while doing my research. In no way am i insinuating Josh copied off of any other websites,but I was hoping for some more unique dishes to be described by the expect.

Decipherability: 4- Especially for an initial offering,this review was easy to follow, and for the most part, got it's point across.

Humor/ Enjoyment factor: 2-Please understand, I made this a category after reading all of Josh's reviews, some of which had me "lol-ing". This was not one of those. If I had to rank it, I'd put it somewhere between NBC's hit show "Joey" and Dennis Miller's stint on Monday night football.

Overall score: 13 out of 20. Good first effort Josh.

Please note this is my first attempt at a blog. I am not perfect nor do I claim to be. Any suggestions are most appreciated. I''m even thinking of changing the ratings. Comments are appreciated.

An introduction: Reviewing Bronstein's reviews

Hello All,

Let me start by saying in no way is this blog meant to insult to anger Bronstein. He is one of my best friends, and PFL's. However in a conversation today he insinuated that blogging is "a skill" and that he was some sort of an expert because he has a food blog. I would like to preface this by saying some of Bronstein's blogs are very useful and well written. However, I do believe he has room to improve,and I feel this is a good public forum for people to speak their minds about this increasingly popular site. I do not claim my site will be perfect-that is the point-bloggers are not experts. Please feel free to share your thoughts,and we can debate the merit of the blog. If you do not know what I'm talking about, we will be reviewing our friend Josh Bronstein's blog.

http://thejspot-food.blogspot.com/

I will review each post based on a few categories and give my arbitrary score. Points will be given on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest.

The categories are :

1. Usefulness: Is this review helpful to the average New Yorker? Does it make sense? Is the average person aided by or confused by this review? Points will be given on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest.

2. Value added: Does this review add any real value and teach us something, or is it simply a copy off of more mainstream websites ( I will be doing research on each review to compare and contrast)

3. Decipherability: While this large and possibly non real word may look confusing, it's point is simple: Is the review easy to understand, or is it a series of incoherent food obsessed ramblings.

4. Humor/ Enjoyment factor: Josh does a very nice job of making his blogs come to life. I expect he will accumulate high scores here.

Please visit out sister site here : www.phillysportsplus.blogspot.com