When I last used the Michelin guide, about ten years ago, it was a little bizarre: IIRC descriptions would give 2-3 sentences about the decor or service, a short phrase about the food, the rating, and that was it. My choice was to blindly trust the rating or to look elsewhere. I took the rating into account, but I need much more information. Is it still that way? Did I misunderstand something?
This is me with movies and video games too. Like, sure the Metacritic ratings count for something, but ultimately it's far more significant to me to find a handful of reviewers whose taste I trust who can describe in longer form what it was that worked for them and didn't, and in particular when there are one or more X-factors that make something significantly more than the sum of its parts.
Contrary to what the article suggests, the star system is not really a rating but more of an award. For most people a one star should already the most fantastic restaurant they've had.
Even the restaurant that don't receive a star and figure in the guide should be amongst the best in a region.
So simply figuring in the guide should already be a strong signal that you will get a minimum quality meal.
