Restaurant criticism, it would seem, is undressing before our eyes.
Systems once in place to uphold the integrity of the role are being stripped away in the same way a performer’s stage costume has shrunk to threads. Only a few critics maintain their anonymity, a cornerstone of the form of yesteryear, and the shooting stars that once trailed behind a restaurant review have become as sparse as a hand-toss of glitter.
Until now, that is. Recently, critics across the country are beginning to wield stars the way they used to, sparking a new conversation on what it might look like to reimagine a ranking system in modern dining. The Free Press has not attached star ratings to its restaurant reviews in more than a decade, but as the debate gains traction
on the coasts, I've grown curious about how rankings might fare here in the Midwest.
In my deepest interrogation of the prospect, there's one truth I cannot ignore and that is this: No decision can be made on the matter without input from the very people this impacts most − and that's you.
The Free Press has created a survey for readers to complete, sharing the ways stars help or hinder your process in evaluating whether to visit a restaurant. Find that at the bottom of this page, and read on to immerse yourself in the ins and outs of critics' ranking deliberations.
The history
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, most critics took the gentlemanly approach of halting their respective ranking systems attached to restaurant reviews, during a tumultuous time for a fragile industry. There was a consensus that pressing a gold star onto the forehead of a mom-and-pop shop simply trying to make payroll would be perverse, and, alternatively, awarding four stars to a fine-dining establishment tone deaf. We stood in solidarity on this for years.
In the time since, six years to be exact, the dining industry has been butterflied and laid bare, exposing all of its vulnerabilities for public gawking. Surmounting issues of labor retention challenges, food shortages, high overheads and paper-thin profit margins, the industry has gone on to face staffing issues amid the current administration’s harsh immigration policies, inflation, tariffs and foodborne illness outbreaks. Things have not gotten much easier for restaurants.
Still, diners, facing many of the same perils, seek restaurants for comfort, community and the appreciation of food as an artform.
And therefore, restaurant critics have revisited the review, interrogating ways to better support the diner.
Turns out, as critics evaluate the best approach to reviewing restaurants in a modern world, some are returning to the age-old systems once left behind – ranking systems. Critics at the country’s most trusted sources for restaurant criticism are looking back to see a path forward.
The New York Times brought back starred reviews in 2022, The Washington Post in 2025 and late September, San Francisco Chronicle’s Restaurant Critic MacKenzie Chung Fegan told a live audience the paper would reintroduce starred reviews after an eight-year hiatus.
I took on this role in a post-pandemic, post-stars era. In fact, my predecessor hadn’t attached stars to his restaurant reviews during his five-year tenure. When I ask the question: "Should the Detroit Free Press reinstate a ranking system with its restaurant reviews?" I take into account that I’d resurrect a practice laid to rest long ago.
I recognize that reestablishing stars could undermine decisions made by the Free Press critics before me, decisions I imagine they, too, pored over in a different time, under different circumstances. But in an age where we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with user-generated review platforms, I comprehend the value in the ranking systems my counterparts have returned to. And perhaps there’s value in standing in solidarity on that, too.
“This is the same system that Elazar uses at the Washington Post and that Ligaya Mishan and Tejal Rao employ at the New York Times, and I do think there is utility in standardization across the major newspapers …” Chung Fegan wrote in a recent edition of Bite Curious, the Chronicle’s food newsletter, where she outlined the refresh of the four-star rubric.
Chung Fegan’s words resonate, as do a number of the pros and cons of rankings that have been weighed among critics for decades or longer. I’ll share mine here.
Pro: Stars can be badges of honor
Food writing has grown to reflect the expansiveness of American dining, covering delicious cuisines from West Africa to the Philippines, acknowledging that varied cultures contribute to the wonderful tapestry of food in this country. It has also evolved to include stories of the people who feed our communities, whether they’re serving dishes with silver spoons or plastic spoons, on white linens or out of the back of a truck.
What message do we send in welcoming establishments into the conversation, only to deny them the badges of honor they strived for in their quest for equity and acknowledgement?
Reinstating a ranking system offers chefs, cooks and restaurateurs not only the opportunity to compete, but to wear the medal, too.
Pro: Forward thinking leads to forward motion
A recurring challenge among critics who have ultimately opted against a ranking system is establishing a process that can accurately, appropriately and fairly rate establishments with very different traits according to one set of standards. In 2019, Patricia Escárcega, then co-restaurant critic for the Los Angeles Times, defended the Times’ position to not publish star reviews, writing: “For a star system to work meaningfully, we must define what we mean by a four-star restaurant.” Well ahead of his time, the late critic Jonathan Gold did away with the ranking system at the LA Times back in 2012.
There’s a window of opportunity for true progress here. If today’s critics can, in certain terms, redefine what an exceptional restaurant looks, feels and tastes like, untethered to who’s serving it or where it’s being served, that could be powerful.
I’d be open to reimplementing stars if there’s a way to recalibrate the scale to weigh all weight classes. Let’s consider placing restaurants in defined categories, from roving eateries – such as food trucks and pop-ups – to fast-casual restaurants to fine dining establishments, the way boxers face off in classes from strawweight to heavy weight. The way athletic teams are placed into divisions or leagues. The way apples are compared to apples.
I can't help but think giving up on the effort it might take to re-tool the scale is giving up on a group of culinarians who deserve to be believed in.
Con: Old habits die hard
There’s something about the notion of going backwards that has always given me pause. There are reasons you leave an old love. There’s a reason the rearview mirror is smaller than the windshield.
After years of progress, I fear the instinct to slip into the way things were is a step backwards rather than forward. As I consider the return to star rankings, I’m cautiously questioning the value it brings to our current existence and trying to predict the ways it will serve future purposes, too.
Con: Ratings leave little room for nuance
As a critic, I go to intricate lengths to convey the essence of a dining experience through the art of language. An icon or numerical value summarizes that oeuvre into a symbol. With the advent of AI as a threat to our collective inclination for freethinking, I worry a ranking system may add to the decline of critical thought. Who among us will look beyond the rating to read the full review for nuance, color and context?
Ultimately, there’s no real conversation without a partner, and when it comes to the consideration of reinstating stars, the entity central to this dialogue is you, the reader.
What has always been true is that stars are designed for you. Without your input, the decision to reintroduce them is prescriptive.
To that end, we’ve created a poll for our community to weigh in on whether stars, numbers or some other metric would be a valuable resource for parsing restaurant reviews. I’m calling out for readers, Free Press staffers chefs and hospitality workers – after all, the review has an immense impact on a restaurant’s success.
Pass it on. Ask other metro Detroiters to complete the survey, and let us know whether you could benefit from a ranking system.
Contact Detroit Free Press Dining and Restaurant Critic Lyndsay C. Green at: LCGreen@freepress.com. Follow @LadyLuff on Instagram and Twitter. Subscribe to the Eat Drink Freep newsletter for extras and insider scoops on Detroit-area dining.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: The Free Press considers bringing stars back to restaurant reviews
