[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin opīniō, opīniōn-, from opīnārī, to think.]

This was a somewhat interesting column I read a little while ago:
http://www.richmondmagazine.com/?articleID=69cce3f2b5b17c701d9e346b585107d3

While I appreciate the general sentiment of the article and the associated caution(s), I'm not so sure I quite agree about the (implied) power of reading either an "effusive" review or a negative review, especially on a blog.

Online anonymity does give a forum for people to express opinions rather "freely". I would rather read them just to get an idea of what the place is about and/or what someone somewhere felt when they ate there. I sort of draw a parallel (rather humbly) to teaching evaluations, which are also anonymous. I have had vile comments on some and some truly wonderful comments on others. Many of the former have been largely unsubstantiated so I take them with a healthy dose of salt (I like the word ad hominem that I've especially seen in several grant proposal reviews as well). Some of the other critical comments have helped me tweak my general approach. Similarly the positive comments help one know what they are doing right.

Chefs and restaurants obviously have much more at stake and a larger and diverse audience with wildly different palates to satisfy, but the principle is the same. A perusal of just about anything online shows a diversity of opinions. People love things, hate things or otherwise straddle the middle. I freely spew my opinions on different fora, this blog included. Similarly I read other opinions on other places. It is almost up to the reader to take what they will from a general review. To be a bit nerdy, it is about the ability to gauge the statistical significance of a review and note if it is an outlier (in either direction).

What I do agree with is the philosophy that this article also mentions that many of my favorite food critics follow (which is one of the things that separates a opinion from an informed opinion). Multiple visits on different occasions and trying different things and writing a comprehensive review that encompasses this overall view (in mathematical terms, higher n and corresponding standard deviation).

Now I guess I must visit Balliceaux and see what the fuss is all about :)