Chronicle Critics Unveil Another Arbitrarily Ranked Top 100

""We don't all eat in fine dining restaurants all the time," Fegan says, to justify the diversity of price points. This raises concerns about the validity of comparing different dining experiences."

"Hernandez stated, "I think that there is both artistic merit in a torta from a panaderia and an amuse bouche or a canape from a fine dining restaurant," highlighting the complexity of comparing diverse culinary offerings."

"The baseline requirements to qualify for the list last year were that the place had to be open at least two days per week and have some kind of seating, even if it was a food truck."

"Hernandez discussed how the rankings are considered: "We appraised every restaurant on its own terms, which allowed us the freedom to compare a fine dining joint with, say, a deli.""

The Chronicle's Top 100 list has been updated, but it retains flaws by being ranked instead of alphabetized, leading to unfair comparisons between diverse dining experiences. Critics MacKenzie Chung Fegan and Cesar Hernandez justify the list's methodology, but the approach raises questions about the validity of comparing Michelin-starred restaurants with casual eateries. The criteria for inclusion are minimal, allowing a wide range of establishments, yet the ranking system undermines the unique qualities of each restaurant.

Read at sfist.com