The review after the visit

An original commentary about writing reviews.

I distrust a review which seems to know what I will enjoy before telling me what happened. Five stars can make a promise with extraordinary confidence. They cannot tell me whether the reviewer wanted the same evening I did.

Someone might praise a restaurant because dinner took three unhurried hours. Another person, hoping to eat before a performance, could reasonably treat the same pace as a difficulty. The disagreement need not mean that one diner has lied. The missing information is the purpose against which each judged the visit.

Specific detail gives readers something they can use. “Wonderful atmosphere” supplies enthusiasm; an account of music so loud that conversation became difficult supplies a condition. A reader can decide whether that sounds lively or exhausting. Description creates room for a judgement different from the reviewer's own.

This does not require pretending to have no preferences. A review stripped of every opinion would become an inventory. I want to know how the experience affected the person writing, provided that the response is connected with something more visible than a confident adjective.

Nor should one visit become an unlimited verdict. A dish was unavailable that evening; it does not follow that the kitchen never serves it. A quiet Tuesday cannot establish what every Saturday is like. Stating the limits of an experience gives the reader more information, not less.

The useful reviewer offers a considered account without appointing themselves guardian of everyone else's taste. I may disagree with the final judgement and still be grateful for the review. It has helped me make my own decision, which is a better service than demanding that I borrow somebody else's.

Explain the writer’s view of what makes a review useful to its readers.