There's nothing about a 1-10 scale that implies that every visit to the restaurant will be equally pleasurable. Novelty is a factor. I would suggest that a sublime restaurant (a 10) will both make a really great first impression and also get tiresome more slowly (because restaurants like that tend to change their menu more dramatically, use a broader variety of ingredients, etc.). My utils from going to Cheesecake Factory would quickly approach zero after a few weeks of regular visits.
That's a good point. It might also depend on what the alternative is: the Cheesecake Factory might be much more appealing as an alternative to starvation than as an alternative to a diet consisting entirely of milk and potatoes.
You might have to stretch out the time scale a bit to reach stability, as I suggested in my initial comment: would you rather eat at the Cheesecake Factory once a month than Poppy once every two years, but rather eat at Poppy once a year than at the Cheesecake Factory once a month? (I never went to Poppy; maybe you didn't either.)
Maybe there's no time scale at which those numbers stabilize for you, though, so maybe whether you'd rate Tim Horton higher or lower than the Cheesecake Factory depends on how often you've suffered through their ham and cheese croissants in the last month or year. In that case maybe we have doomed the entire project of rating restaurants on a scalar scale, even a purely ordinal scale like the Mohs scale.
