Ever since I started living on my own, my main sources of sustenance have been largely consistent of restaurant fare, whether it be in dine-in or take-out form. This habitual change has made me very dependent on online restaurant reviews, almost embarrassingly so, especially when I am looking to try something new. Thus, for this mini assignment, I decided to look at the two different measures of restaurant ‘goodness’ I most frequently use: Dine Here and Urbanspoon.

The websites are similar in that they both address all the basics you need to know before making a reservation, i.e. restaurant location, contact information, website and online menu if available. Informationally, the main differences between the two are the scope and the panel. While Dine Here is restricted to Canadian restaurants, Urbanspoon covers almost all major North American cities.

Dine Here offers more of a vernacular review as the critiques come from ordinary diners with ‘untrained’ palettes. Restaurant ratings are based on an ascending five star scale, which is aggregated from the  rating submissions based on three criteria: food, service value and ambience. In order to avoid evolving into an online platform facilitating restaurant sabotage, users are asked if they have any affiliation with the restaurant reviewed, although this measure is easily by-passable with a simple lie. Users must discuss the reasons for their rating, which are, in turn, rated based on usefulness. This keeps the reviews relatively reliable, as one is able to see and judge individual reviews by how much consensus or the ‘usefulness’ rating it receives.

Urbanspoon covers a larger geographical scope and categorizes its reviews into multiple categories such as price, type of cuisine and city. The panel of judges in effect ‘work/contribute’ to the interactive corporation. While they have fifteen million of these employed ‘foodies’, they also include ratings from newspapers, bloggers and other social media sites. The scope and information categories can be time-consuming and  a little overwhelming if you’re just browsing. However, if you’re not scrambling over last minute reservations then this would be a better source in terms of both validity (although this is dependent on how much you value a professional’s taste buds over the everyday diner’s). The website does not have standard review criteria so what you gain in validity you might have to sacrifice in reliability. The ratings tend to fluctuate with no general trend due to such a wide range of reviewers with completely different palettes and preferences.

With Valentine’s Day just around the corner, I think utilizing Dine Here would provide you and your date with a more reliable rating, and less information to sift through. If you are an ‘appeal to authority’ type, Urbanspoon will allow you insight into a range of ‘professional’ opinions, but the inconsistencies that arise mean that you will often have to take a chance with the review you choose to lend the most credit to.

In their article, Collier and Levitsky focus on a “procedural minimum” definition of democracy for their examination of the various adjectives that have arisen in front of the term ‘democracy’ in academia. In dealing with the conceptualizing of a newfound diversity of post-authoritarian regimes, scholars have exhibited two contradictory goals. The first, analytic differentiation, refers to the attempt to capture the diversity in the forms of democracy that have emerged. The second, conceptual validity, is concerned with avoiding the conceptual stretching that occurs when the concept of democracy is made applicable to cases which, by scholarly standards, it is not applicable. This latter goal results in subtypes of democracy, and espouses the title of Collier and Levitsky’s piece, “Democracy with Adjectives.”

Example 1:

A day to celebrate American democracy 

In the example above, the phrase “American democracy” is moving down Santori’s ladder of generality, aiming at increasing differentiation, not conceptual stretching. It is “precising” the definition of democracy by adding a defining attribute that does not contradict the definition of democracy itself (be it procedural minimum or expanded procedural minimum). Thus, it is a classical (as per Collier and Levitsky) or traditional (as per lecture notes) subtype of democracy. In other words, if you were to remove the adjective “American” from the phrase “American democracy,” we would still be referring to a democracy in this context.

Here is another example of the usage of the phrase “American democracy:”

Presidential inaugurations: American democracy in its glory and shabbiness 

Example 2:

Nigeria: Country As an Emerging Democracy: The Dilemma and the Promise 

While the phrase “emerging democracy” is also moving down Santori’s ladder of generality, the subtype that it represents is a diminished subtype. I classify it as such because, firstly, this subtype is not a full instance of the root definition (type) of democracy, and secondly, it represents an incomplete form of democracy. In other words, if you were to remove the term “emerging” from the phrase “emerging democracy,” the use of the term democracy would become incorrect in this context.

Zach:

I grew up in Vancouver as well, closer to the UBC area, but lived right at the entrance to Granville Island for the past two years (at W 3rd Ave. and Fir St.). It’s interesting that you grew up in that neighbourhood because I have always found it to be a very eccentric place, with quite a different vibe than the rest of Vancouver. I always encounter a very eclectic mix of people; the island seems to be an artist’s haven, and when I say artist I mean everything from culinary artists (foodies galore!) to painters and glass blowers, along with everyone else in between. Here’s a link to my favourite restaurant on the island (which I’m sure you’ve been to many times); I am hungry just thinking about the mussels and the seafood tower, definitely my most common orders there!

The Sandbar on Granville Island 

Connor:

I can definitely see your ‘transatlantic perspective’ emerge during our class discussions, how would you characterize the political system in the U.K. in comparison to its Canadian counterpart?

It’s interesting to hear that you are a bit of a cinephile; I have always been more of a reader than a watcher and can’t help but feel dissatisfied with many movie translations of novels. In fact, I purposely avoid watching any movies based on novels that I like. However, I am sure that when you say you love movies, very few of your favourites are those based on books. Do you have any recommendations? Here is a link to a website that allows you to access a huge database of movies for free (hope I don’t get arrested for sharing this! :P)

Free Movies!

Jamie:

Wow, very impressive that you are quad-lingual (is that the right term?). I have always admired those who are masterful with languages; I personally speak English, Mandarin and French. Although  my French capabilities, in comparison to yours, are probably comparable to those of a small child. I, too, am happy about the NHL lockout ending. My boyfriend has seasons tickets, but I have to say, going to our first home game with him was a hugely demoralizing experience… We definitely haven’t had the best start but hey it can only go up from here! Here’s a link to the Canucks playoff schedule, so you can mark the days you’ll need a drink (or two)!

Canucks Playoff Schedule

Hi Everyone,

I apologize for the delayed start to my blog postings (although this is probably much more detrimental to my own success than any of yours) but I fully intend to be all caught up by the end of this week. Luckily, I am a prolific writer; I’ve always enjoyed written expression, especially because I find that my written voice is often more eloquent and articulate than my spoken one.

A brief background summary is quintessential for every self-introduction: I was born in Beijing, China, but immigrated to Vancouver at an age young enough to make this city feel like my unofficial birthplace. I attended high school right on campus, at the University Transition Program, and am now finishing up the final year of my B.A. in Political Science. Like many of my peers, I am an aspiring lawyer. Having written the challenging, but exhilarating, LSAT this past October and submitted all my applications in the months following, I am now in the (exciting) limbo stage of waiting to hear back from a number of law schools in Ontario.

In accordance with the academic interests I expressed in class last week, I’ve taken a number of comparative politics classes throughout my years at UBC. Ergo, when it came time to pick an interesting seminar for my last semester, I naturally gravitated towards this course. Little did I know, it would bear a strong (read: identical) resemblance to a course that I took with Professor Nyblade last year. I see this pseudo-repetition of a course as bearing both advantageous and disadvantageous implications. On the one hand, as I greatly enjoyed the course last year, and felt truly engaged by the material and the subject matter studied, I look forward to getting the chance to revisit everything, this time even more in-depth than previously (in terms of readings and expectations). On the other hand, as a result of my previous involvement, I have set exceedingly high expectations for myself. In retrospect, I feel dissatisfied with my first attempt to ‘measure democracy;’ thus, I look forward to trying again, and getting to know all of you in the process 🙂