Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

jmspae.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 374 posts

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#141

Post by sockmeistr »

pocketarc wrote: post #91
vzaliva wrote: post #82

This is a good example where a summary produced by much-hated AI (GPT 4o) is quite useful (to people who do not want to read all details in he article): "In his study, James Pae examined the hypothesis: "The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab." Focusing on Paris, he analysed kebab shops' proximity to train and metro stations alongside their Google review ratings. His findings revealed a negligible corre…

I don't think a lot of people have a problem with AI summaries (a lot of people are using AI for exactly that). I think the 'hate' mostly comes from the fact that people tend to copy/paste whatever AI says without adding anything to the conversation. It's the same as me running a query on Google and copy/pasting a list of 10 results. It doesn't really add anything to a conversation - anyone can go to Google and look…

For what it's worth, I do hate people pasting their AI summaries to the comments. Not only are they adding nothing, they are actively detracting from the conversation; they have just pasted a wall of text without fact-checking it. And in fact, this "summary" misrepresents the article; it completely ignores the humor and presents it as a serious scientific endeavour.

But judging from the rest of the comments, it seems like most people barely managed to finish reading the title, so perhaps there's no need to worry about them reading this AI slop...

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#142

Post by ralferoo »

I was hoping for a systematic and consistent reviews of many dozens of kebab shops in a certain metropolitan area.

Just basing any kind of research of reviews on the web is fundamentally flawed as only a tiny fraction of customers would ever review a restaurant - and usually reviews are overly biased negative from bad experiences, or biased positive by people being incentivised to leave good reviews by discounts or outright fake reviews, or some kind of average of the two. As such the actual results from these reviews are pretty meaningless, apart from the number of reviews which might correlate roughly with how likely a place is to be visited, good or bad. In this case, I think that will also probably correlate with proximity to stations, rather than the quality.

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#143

Post by [deleted] »

acaloiar wrote: post #94
asah wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not mutually exclusive. Counter examples: - Katz's deli in NYC is incredibly famous, in a great location, and actually has kickass pastrami. The trade-off are relatively high prices and lines down the block - restaurants with exclusive relationships. - restaurants that make money another way, e.g. gambling. - family owned restaurants with legacy rent deals. - restaurants that cater to niche audiences e.g. sm…

Comments of this quality are getting frustrating. The grand parent post clearly stated it is the poster's "rule of thumb". By definition they are aware that the rules are [likely] "not mutually exclusive". Starting with "these are not mutually exclusive", is what makes this comment so unnecessary. Don't be proud of having listed exceptions to someone's rule of thumb. Had you started with, "I like that; these are a fe…

[deleted]

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#144

Post by ghaff »

Kozmik1 wrote: post #68

Has anyone tried Le Train Bleu inside Gare de Lyon station in Paris? It's a very fancy restaurant (French, obviously). Like many such places, the reviews are mixed, but it was plenty to impress my simpleton American expectations. Certainly a step up from the options one might find in Penn Station (at least to me)! https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g187147-d11097...

I'm not sure there's a lot of interest in the US for fancy dining in transportation hubs. In fact, airports have generally moved away from fancier dining generally towards fast casual. There is some decent food in the new Moynihan train hall in Penn but certainly no fancy dining.

Not sure I disagree as a traveler.

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#145

Post by slt2021 »

ReptileMan wrote: post #85
seanthemon wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My rule of thumb: if it has the name of the country, i expect the food to be at best sub-par i.e "Great Indian" (gave me wild food poisoning). Second rule of thumb: if the milkshakes are good, the food will be good - almost never fails me.

For kebab some comedian gave the best advice - look at the knuckles of the kebab maker - if they are very hairy it will be good. Then look at the neckline of his shirt - if there are hairs coming out of it - the kebab will be great.

this reminds me my experience: when I went to Salt Lake City and wanted to try Turkish food and picked nearest Turkish restaurant with the the highest reviews from google maps.

Interior was authentic and nice, but the food turned out to be AWFUL, kebab was burnt to ashes, everything food wise was horrible.

When I complained, the cook came back and apologized, and I saw the cook was White American. Not saying all Americans are bad cooks, but in my experience I would have expected turkish chef to cook turkish food for authentic experience and quality.

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#147

Post by xattt »

imgabe wrote: post #102
btilly wrote: post #42

Many years ago I came up with a rule of thumb. Restaurants have three basic strategies, be a known quantity (chain), have a good location, or be actually good. I've found some gems by looking for the third category. Given that "near the train" is a good location, that would support this theory.

My only rule is that restaurants in hotels are usually mediocre to bad, which fits with your theory. If they have some built-in customer base they don’t have to work as hard at being good.

Hotel restaurants are feature placebo. They are give the impression of added value/fanciness, even if they are rarely accessed by value-conscious guests.

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#148

Post by dole »

xobs wrote: post #130
imgabe wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My only rule is that restaurants in hotels are usually mediocre to bad, which fits with your theory. If they have some built-in customer base they don’t have to work as hard at being good.

I remember reading an article that had the theory that Thai restaurants in hotels were usually very authentic under the assumption that the parents were immigrants who wanted the child to inherit the business, but the kid wanted to run a restaurant instead. It would certainly explain why you get Thai restaurants attached to random hotels in the middle of nowhere, at least.

The Thai government practices gastro-diplomacy, they have a program where you set a Thai restaurant up in a foreign country, you can pick from three different packages for size or fanciness of restaurant. It's why you see a lot of the same decorations and similarities between differently owned Thai restaurants, or occasionally a family will own a number in a metro area.

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#149

Post by morsecodist »

btilly wrote: post #42

Many years ago I came up with a rule of thumb. Restaurants have three basic strategies, be a known quantity (chain), have a good location, or be actually good. I've found some gems by looking for the third category. Given that "near the train" is a good location, that would support this theory.

Totally agree but I would expand location into convenience. For example, I find restaurants that don't take reservations or have limited hours are often better.

In my head I have a category for reliable restaurants to go to when you are planning something with people and you want to make sure to have a consistent, predictable experience and restaurants that are worth waiting for or going at a weird time.

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#150

Post by MichaelDickens »

btilly wrote: post #42

Many years ago I came up with a rule of thumb. Restaurants have three basic strategies, be a known quantity (chain), have a good location, or be actually good. I've found some gems by looking for the third category. Given that "near the train" is a good location, that would support this theory.

Based on the empirical evidence from OP, this seems correct. But there's a theoretical argument for why "good location" and "actually good" should be positively correlated:

1. Good locations are more expensive.

2. People are willing to pay more for better food.

3. Therefore (all else equal), better restaurants earn more revenue.

4. Therefore, better restaurants have a higher willingness-to-pay on rent.

5. Therefore, better restaurants will outbid worse restaurants for good locations.

Post reply on HN