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

61–70 of 374 posts

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

#61

Post by robocat »

myhf wrote: post #38
janwillemb wrote: post #9

He didn't find a correlation, or rather found that there is no correlation, between proximity to a railway station and how the kebab is reviewed. It's a nice study for a statistics class!

There may not be a correlation, but you can clearly see that the bottom-right quadrant of the plot is basically empty, which is an important insight. A more accurate aphorism would be "You can sell good kebabs anywhere, but you can only sell bad kebabs near a train station." And if you look at the "minimum viable quality" instead of the overall quality, there does seem to be a linear correlation with the distance. Yo…

> "You can sell good kebabs anywhere, but you can only sell bad kebabs near a train station."

Insightful!

97.38% of bad studies measure the wrong variable.

Do drunk french people buy kebabs? In my city one central late night kebab place has great kebabs. Anecdotally I remember one great kebab cart serving at least one drunken customer in Nice (France) - not near a station and a long way from the Paris metro!

I think there's some population selection flaws. Drunk people don't leave reviews. In foreign countries it is difficult to know the correct search term.

I suggest an alternative study: how much lager does it need to make a train station kebab taste great?

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

#64

Post by decimalenough »

mxfh wrote: post #40

Duh, commuters are just less picky with their food choices, reliably fast service trumps food quality here for obvious reasons. Tourists as mentioned in the article are not that many. Anecdotally the worst McDonalds Burger I had was with a cold slice of cheese at the Berlin Main Station, while the Döner there was always above par.

Döner in Berlin is like ramen in Tokyo: the competition is so furious that objectively bad places go out of business quickly.

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

#65

Post by nicolas_t »

SamBam wrote: post #31
janwillemb wrote: post #9

He didn't find a correlation, or rather found that there is no correlation, between proximity to a railway station and how the kebab is reviewed. It's a nice study for a statistics class!

As far as I can tell, his study is looking for a correlation with the distance to Metro stations. This is a big difference. There are hundreds of Metro stations in Paris. Everywhere is close to one. I think the original intent was distance to a train station. If Paris is anything like Rome, close to the railway station is cheap hostels and recent immigrants accommodations.

That saying in France is usually understood to be for cities outside of Paris and only referring to "Gares" (that word is used for train stations, not for subway stations). Anecdotally, I'd say it holds true in general in most cities I've visited (with Paris being an exception)

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

#66

Post by deanCommie »

asah wrote: post #52
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.

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…

They're not mutually exclusive because they're a triangle.

Cost, Convenience, Quality: Pick 2

This isn't that deep either - convenience and quality are 2 things that cost the restaurant money (either via higher rent, or more expensive ingredients).

You can't do all 3 because you'll never make a profit.

You can't do only 1 or you'll never get any customers.

Two is just right for both buyer and seller.

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

#67

Post by wftglf »

glitchc wrote: post #44

The notable exception perhaps is Kings Cross Station in London. Food is generally excellent.

Hmm but is it excellent for kebabs? I'm more a falafel person so can't really judge but I think crystal kebab is the only one and it doesn't do any form of deep fried chickpeas I rate the chinese place over the road though!

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

#68

Post by Kozmik1 »

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...

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

#69

Post by jerlam »

Wouldn't it be "good, convenient, cheap - pick two" (at most)?

There can be good food near transportation hubs, but it will be more costly. It is difficult to filter out price as a factor in reviews because people can value their money differently, especially tourists.

Post reply on HN