Food-O-File

One of my favorite things about this job is getting tips from readers about new places to eat that they've discovered and want to share. Recently, however, I've received correspondence from readers indicating some confusion out there about how we decide which restaurants to review in print. It's convinced me that it's time to outline just what the Chronicle's restaurant review policy is and what it is not.

1. The food staff meets regularly to discuss upcoming issues, and each writer suggests restaurants that he or she would like to review. We then decide who will go where and whether the reviews will be in the long or short format. All reviews are assigned; we do not purchase unsolicited reviews from freelance writers.

2. New restaurants are not reviewed until they have been open at least four months - more often, six - to allow them time to get the kinks worked out of their menus and service, and to get their systems under control. However, we are interested in letting our readers know about the opening of restaurants through this column. Sending us a press release or new business announcement could get a mention here when the business first opens.

3. We don't review restaurants on request or send a particular member of the food staff to review a restaurant at the request of that restaurant. If a restaurant provides a free meal to someone on our food staff, it's highly unlikely that person will be assigned to review that business. When a restaurant thinks it's ready to be reviewed, it's welcome to fax or mail us a business announcement, a copy of its current menu, or a press release about something special that it's doing. The food staff will discuss it at a meeting and consider putting it on our list of restaurants to be reviewed.

4. The Chronicle does not sell restaurant reviews with advertising packages. The food staff has no contact with the ad sales staff, and the ad sales staff has no influence over which businesses gets reviewed or when. In addition, there is no Chronicle policy that says we may only review businesses which advertise with us or that we should go easy on a restaurant we're reviewing simply because it advertises with us.

5. We cannot rush out and give a restaurant a positive review simply because it is in danger of closing. Recently, the Chronicle has received messages imploring us to save a restaurant whose business dropped drastically after failing health inspection scores made the news. Such requests assume that we already hold the restaurant in high esteem or would automatically have the kind of dining experiences there that would generate a positive review. Moreover, they assume that enough people would respond to a positive review here to reverse the restaurant's decline in business. None of those assumptions are guaranteed. And even if they were, good press is only the solution to one problem. No one hates to see restaurants fail more than I do, but it's not the job of this paper to save restaurants from themselves.

6. Criticism is just that: an informed critical evaluation of a particular dining experience. The reviewer comments on his or her personal experience at an establishment, and it may or may not vary from that of other patrons of that establishment. While we endeavor to spotlight good points and be constructive, it is not our job to make excuses for inedible meals and condescending service at a popular business or inept service at a poorly run restaurant.

7. Whether you're an outraged restaurant owner, staffer, or patron, if you disagree with a Chronicle restaurant review, write a letter to the editor and it will be printed. However, note that under the Robb Walsh/Killer Vegan Directive, threatening or obscene phone messages, faxes, letters, or e-mail will be turned over to the police.

8. The deadline for submission of items to this column is two weeks before the date of publication. I won't guarantee to use everything I get, but getting things here in a timely fashion boosts the chances of them being included.