Live data from Hacker News

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

jmspae.se

181–190 of 374 posts

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

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't Google Maps reviews separately measure food, "ambience" and service? Is it not possible to access the food component directly? It's debatable whether these components can actually be segregated that way. In practice, no, every review system is plagued with reviews in the form of 'delicious food, lovely staff, but another table was too loud one star.'

True. Everyone has the one thing they care about. I care about ambience. I barely notice the food.

> I care about ambience. I barely notice the food.

I'm saying it's difficult if not impossible to disentangle these elements. The vibe, perhaps even the staffs' moods, will be in part a function of the diners. That, in turn, turns at least in part on the food. And vice versa--a place with a devout following that respects the kitchen staff will probably produce better food and ambiance, as both arise out of a sense of mutual respect.

You may not care about the food directly. But if your barmate in a fun outfit with a contagious laugh does, that's part of the vibe you're there to feed on. (I love food. But I've sometimes found myself winnowing down a list of restaurant options by the lighting.)

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

#182
post #15

This makes intuitive sense. High mass-transit corridor real-estate (rail, air, road) leases come at a premium so those higher fixed-costs and must be balanced against a higher-volume of less-breadth of service with the same fixed (or even slightly higher) labor costs. In food service, high-volume is (mostly) inversely correlated with quality.

OP found no correlation

Then OP shouldn't have used that title. My reasoning still stands.

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

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

This falls apart a bit if providing better food costs more. Restaurants with better food may earn more revenue all else being equal but their costs may be higher. People are willing to pay more for the same quality of food in a better location. It makes sense for a the restaurant with worse food to outbid a restaurant with better food because the location is more important to them and they are allocating more money t…

[deleted]

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

#184
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.

good location = higher rent = food better attract people

I'm not saying that holds up, only that it's not clear to me that "good location" = skimping on actually being good.

To go the other extreme, I guess all the best restaurants in the USA are in Wyoming since they arguably have worst locations (low population density = low traffic) so they must have to concentrate on food. Yea, ... no.

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

#185
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,…

This is how I think of it too. In a popular location, the restaurants won't necessarily be the best, but they'll be better on average.

Also, compare any big city to its adjacent areas. Like everyone knows LA has better food than San Bernardino.

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

#186
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does crappy restaurant fit into your taxonomy?

Good location or bankrupt. Just look at all the tourist trap restoraunts.

There's a waiter standing outside trying to get people to come in, and I don't mean the reservation / front desk person. No way is it worthwhile for a restaurant with actually good food to pay someone to advertise outside.

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

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we still using real terminology?

Simpson’s paradox is a real thing in medical sampling. As far as the rest of it, who’s to say?

Berkson’s paradox is also real.

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

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

You lost me at point 4. Why would more revenue mean a higher willingness to pay rent unless it made them more profit?

A restaurant that has more money can afford more rent. A restaurant that doesn't have more money can't afford it. So, everything else being equal, better restaurants, making more money, are more likely to rent places that cost more since. Seems pretty straight forward.

it's no different than saying people with higher income, overall, rent/buy housing that costs more.

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

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

This falls apart a bit if providing better food costs more. Restaurants with better food may earn more revenue all else being equal but their costs may be higher. People are willing to pay more for the same quality of food in a better location. It makes sense for a the restaurant with worse food to outbid a restaurant with better food because the location is more important to them and they are allocating more money t…

This addresses supply (cost) but not demand. There won't be enough demand for known bad food, unless it's a tourist trap.

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

#190
post #93
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.

This supports the inverse square rule for seafood restaurant quality vs. being near the ocean. There are good places, but right on the water? Universally bad.

If this were true, the best seafood in Australia would be in Alice Springs.

Conversely, I have one piece of life advice for you: Don't eat seafood in Alice Springs.

Post reply on HN