In Defense of Yelp: User-Generated Reviews and the Democratization of Food Criticism

Note: This is a slightly modified version of an essay I wrote for WRIT340, a writing class I took at USC in 2023. I should clarify that I’m among the least qualified people to speak on food reviewing since I’m too indecisive to rate a dish out of 10, let alone justify it with words (which is probably why I give props to anyone who can do a decent job at it).

What does the quintessential food critic look like? If you grew up loving Pixar’s Ratatouille like I did, the Anton Ego archetype likely comes to mind – cold and ruthless, descending upon restaurants with a notepad and notoriously picky palate. You get the impression he’s removed from the common person, with a prowess for taste ordained by some greater culinary power. The film’s resounding tagline is that “anyone can cook” – not suggesting that everyone can be a great chef, but rather, a great chef can come from anywhere. Why can’t this can’t be extended to critics, too?

From thoroughly researched fine-dining excursions to hole-in-the-wall eateries shared by word-of-mouth, dining revolves around criticism. Bygone are the days when eating out was just eating – for many, the modern dining experience is inseparable from the act of reading, posting, and sharing about food.

Virtually every facet of culture has moved online, and the work of critics is no exception. Opinion pieces about the latest restaurant are no longer restricted to a weekly column of the news; now, they’re exposed to countless eyes via simple search results. With the internet providing critics a larger reach and audience than ever before, it seems logical that their influence would follow suit.

However, they’ve been met with formidable  competition – the internet has simultaneously endowed the general public (a previously passive audience) with the means to become active participants in criticism. Sites like Yelp, Tripadvisor, or OpenTable provide an overall evaluation (eg. stars) for an establishment based on the aggregation of user-submitted ratings. Today, these platforms are the go-to guide for millions of restaurant-goers.

This shift has not come without resistance, and the validity of crowdsourced criticisms have been called into question. Some chefs and restaurant owners are outspoken about their disdain for platforms like Yelp, describing the worst of these reviewers as entitled, fickle, and unconcerned with accountability for what they write – especially those leaving scathing reviews. Though these criticisms may be justified in certain cases, the same attributes have been used to characterize professional critics in the past as well, even before crowdsourced review sites came into existence.

Reviews written by professional critics are expected to be polished, well-researched, and spare no details. Certain critics also possess a penchant for humor that make for an entertaining read. From poetic descriptions of each course to discussions of the establishment’s history, these reviews can very well be a work of literature. There’s no question of the writer’s credibility or expertise. So, what’s the need for democratized reviews when we have professionals? 

Like many other longstanding cultural institutions, traditional food criticism is biased toward Eurocentric, upper class tastes. Most professional critics are based in major cities like New York, and the distribution of their accolades makes it apparent that they tend not to venture far from these metropolitan hubs. Within the restaurant industry, it’s also well established that the French culinary tradition is held as the gold standard, from cooking techniques to the organization of restaurant staff. Thus, chefs and critics alike may be subconsciously biased toward European flair and formalities even while engaged with different cuisines. As such, critical praise and prestigious culinary awards like the Michelin star have long favored very particular locations, establishments, and aesthetics. For restaurants that don’t fit the mold, there is a lack of acknowledgement, and for customers whose tastes differ from the professional critic, the reviews they’re looking for may be few and far in between. 

Of course, the current system of user-generated reviews isn’t perfect. With such a broad pool of reviewers, questionable expectations and motivations may arise. Quality control can be a concern, and preventative measures, like filters to remove abusive or blatantly untrue reviews, could do with some improvements. 

However, we should give the readers more credit – tastes vary and personalities differ, and seasoned users have learned to take ratings (both good and bad) with a hefty grain of salt. For instance, among the Asian-American crowd, it has become an anecdotal rule of thumb that a rating hovering around 3.5 stars out of 5 is the sweet spot for smaller mom-and-pop Asian spots (checks the box for authentic food, but perhaps unconventional customer service by Western standards). The internet is full of unreliable narrators, and we’re usually able to pick up on the trivial nature of certain complaints, or wave off bad-faith reviews. These shouldn’t take away from the contributions of countless other sincere, thoughtful reviews. Furthermore, review sites typically allow owners to publicly respond to reviews, allowing them to refute false or unfair criticisms.

As someone who habitually checks online reviews for everything from late-night takeout to must-try travel itinerary items, it seems instinctual for me to want to defend these sites. Sure, we couldn’t possibly expect the average person, typing up their thoughts on the way home from dinner, to wax poetic on everything from dining room design down to the garnishes adorning their plate. And just as well, this isn’t what we come to these sites for; we consult these reviews for no-frills commentary from the everyday person. Essentially, they’re criticisms by the people, for the people.

User-generated reviews are absolutely valid forms of criticism, despite their departure from what we’ve long understood food critics to look and sound like. All this to say, let the casual critics let coexist with the professionals – each are consulted for distinct reasons and occasions, and together they cover much more territory regarding the quality of restaurants and hospitality. 

Pete Wells, a critic for The New York Times, has embraced crowdsourced review sites. In an interview with the Times, he shares that he uses them “all the time, particularly when I’m curious about a place that hasn’t received much attention yet from professional critics . . . I don’t put much stock in the individual reviews but I do scan the bulk of them for common areas of delight or disapproval.” Love them or hate them, crowdsourced reviews have become a fixture in the food scene, and their broad appeal and influence are shifting the future of food criticism.