Why dining reviews no longer get star ratings

Starting today, Times Union restaurant reviews do not carry star ratings.

The change reflects trends in restaurant dining that have become more pronounced recently — namely, that the distinction between fine and casual dining has blurred.

There used to be an obvious line between upscale restaurants and their less-expensive brethren. The former had table linens, fancy dishes, uniformed servers and menus strictly divided between starters, entrees and desserts, with diners expected (and expecting) to choose one from each. Casual places allowed servers to wear their own clothes and charged $15 less for a sandwich or bowl of pasta than an entree at a fine-dining spot.

Those sharp distinctions do still exist at the extremes in our area. Yono’s and Angelo’s 677 Prime in Albany and 15 Church in Saratoga Springs cosset their guests with extravagant experiences. But that sort of rarefied atmosphere is itself becoming increasingly rare even as devotion to pristine ingredients grows more widespread, as do menus with categories such as “snacks,” “small plates” and “shareables.” Similarly, some of the region’s trendiest restaurants, where a collection of small plates of local ingredients ends up costing as much as an app-and-entree order at 15 Church, feature rustic atmospheres of reclaimed wood and metal; at some, customers sitting at bars in front of open kitchens receive food directly from chefs. Cases in point: the 3 1/2-year-old Peck’s Arcade in Troy and the restaurant that is the subject of today’s review, the first under our new format: Malcolm’s in Schenectady, which opened two months ago. Both celebrate the millennialsgeneration dining style of craft cocktails and shared small plates that is increasingly replacing traditional three-course meals.

Lately, as prices have crept up and casual atmospheres have become de rigeur, there has been occasional confusion among readers — and among everyone responsible for Times Union dining reviews — about how we choose which restaurants are “fine dining” enough to receive a starred rating and which qualify as what we once considered “cheap eats.” In our minds, figuring very roughly, $10 to $15 entrees and dinner for two for less than $75, including drinks, tax and tip, made a restaurant a nonstarred candidate; a bill of $75 per person or more was definitely a starred review.

But in recent months our dining critic, Susie Davidson Powell, who has been reviewing for the Times Union since November 2014, found she easily spent $125 to $150 on dinner for two at places that, because of their casual feel, still seemed like they weren’t candidates for a starred assessment. Part of the problem was that, as a critic making a single visit for a review, Powell ordered more than average diners, resulting in what seemed like an inflated bill. But it was also a matter of ingredient cost: Two places may both look like rustic bars and have comparable service, but if one uses superior ingredients that result in, for example, its burger costing 70 percent more than a seemingly similar burger at the other place, how do you decide which gets a star rating and which doesn’t?

Frankly, dining critics hate stars (or diamonds or whatever reductive symbol is used). We’d much rather you read our words to understand the nuances of a dining experience, much as readers of concert and theater reviews are expected to glean a critic’s verdict from the writing.

Starting with the Malcolm’s review, Powell is using a new format for the accompanying information box. It includes important considerations for the dining experience at restaurants at all levels of price, ambiance, service and kitchen ambition. In addition to categories with overviews of food and drink, the box includes a category for cost, which estimates the total for different types of dinner combinations. There also is a new category for noise level and a final one, called “good for,” in which Powell offers guidance to the types of diners and experiences restaurant is best suited for.

The new approach jettisons what seem now to be arbitrary distinctions between high and low. It may take some getting used to, but we believe it ultimately will be more fair to all restaurants — and more useful to readers deciding where to spend their dining dollar.