For years, French chefs fought over their restaurant ratings in the Michelin guide. Some chefs even killed themselves when they lost a star. It is the Godfather of gastronomy prestige.
The guide uses professional food critics who visit restaurants anonymously, and evaluate them on a range of criteria: quality of the products, mastery of flavor and cooking, “personality” of the cuisine, value for the money, and consistency between visits. Only 300 restaurants in the world have ever been given two MICHELIN Stars. And only 71 restaurants in the world have ever been given three MICHELIN Stars.

When our “tres chic” Parisian friends brought us to dinner in Paris, they were quick to made it known that the restaurant is in the guide. Trying not to appear “rude and annoying” American, I fought my urge to pull out my Zagat guide.

The shrimp shown in the picture (a part of me is annoying, taking photos everywhere…) is perhaps the most delicious shrimp I’ve ever eaten. The shells just fell off smoothly, and it is moist and goes well with the bubbly broth that comes with it. The French always have a way of making beautiful things more gorgeous. In this case the vegetables are presented in a way that you don’t need to chew too hard to get the green effect. In short, the rest of the course was impeccable.

But the restaurant is almost empty on a Saturday night with a spring gentle breeze.

Anyway, as soon as I got back to the hotel, I started reading the Zagat. Well, to my surprise, Zagat described accurately the ambiance and the quality of food. And the ratings of food, decor, service and cost are right on target. In our case, Zagat’s review mentions that the restaurant seems to have fallen out of favor with the celebrities.

Zagat’s ratings are by the public. It never really got enough credit for its place in pioneering a knowledge platform for collaborative and collective intelligence. But I think of it as a great Web 2.0 model.

So do we still need those high-nosed food critics?