h a l f b a k e r y
Breakfast of runners-up.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
or Create a new account.
|
|
| Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
In America, their are 789 food programs on television, and 458 on air personalities running around sampling dishes from the world's restaurants. They are running out of ways to say, "This tastes sooo good!", or, "Hmm, that is so incredibly delicious!" Etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. No way in the
world would they say, " It's only so-so, it just doesn't suit my tastes, sorry."
They can take a Taste Card, numbered 1-10, and display it for the camera only, for an accurate indication of their opinion. They can do this with their mouth's full, and save them the effort of trying act like they have just reached Nirvanna from a spoonful of peach compote.
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL.
E.g., http://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
There are plenty of honest reviewers out there. |
|
| |
Applying Zagat's standards to TV shows would really just count as a "me too", but the system you describe has nothing in common with Zagat's communal approach to rating restaurants. Except maybe the restaurants. |
|
| |
I'm just glad they don't say how the ass tastes. |
|
| |
How is 1-5 more accurate than 1-10? |
|
| |
Dr. Curry is correct about that Zagat thing. I figured by using that word, it would provide the summary with a little more verve and panache. |
|
| |
Why dont you just do it Roman Emperor style and use your opposable digit? |
|
| |