I think with this one it is, because everyone has tasted before, but comparatively few have coded before. So everyone can say something about their subjective taste experiences, but not so many can about some code. The actual difference might be subjective or one of practiced ability to distinguish in detail.

There is also the aspect of science and engineering leading to objective an hopefully reproducible results. There is less subjective matter to it and there are objective criteria to measure quality. It is possible to leave personal taste out of the equation. Imagine a michelin star tester eating and having to throw up, because of taste, even though the kitchen is clean and all ingredients were of superb quality and the cook is really good. Would they still approve objectively?

> I think with this one it is, because everyone has tasted before, but comparatively few have coded before.

I don't think this is an apt comparison. Tasting is consuming something, coding is creating something. An apt comparison would be tasting to using apps, or coding to cooking. And now sure, you could say that most people have cooked before, much like most people have performed rudimentary medical procedures before; but most people have not performed complex medical procedures, or successfully made complex Michelin-starred dishes, or coded high-quality apps.

> So everyone can say something about their subjective taste experiences, but not so many can about some code.

This is not too true for frontend. Everyone and their mother has an opinion on what needs to be pixel pushed, or something that "should be easy."

That’s right of course. But what bothers me is it I greatly enjoy eating out, I’ve done it a whole lot, and I’m still surprisingly bad at it.

That's a bit like saying that most people have used pretty horribly-designed apps, but they did what they needed to do, so the user couldn't tell that they were horrible. For example, most people could not care less that their password manager recently switched to Electron. They don't even notice the alleged resource lag that their coder friends keep banging on about. They simply neither notice nor care. Fine craftsmanship is oftentimes not appreciated or noticed by those not versed in the underlying technicalities by nonpractitioners--oftentimes by design. This is true with coding, cooking, and whatever other domain.

And conversely, poor craftsmanship is often not noticed either, if it's not something that someone is trained to spot. An example of this would be when buying a house, you hire a house inspector because you don't have the requisite training to spot all the potential faults.

So the Michelin Inspectors are discovering measureable, objectively bad things about the food/restaurant, just as you would be able to identify objectively bad things about the good-enough app? What are those things and what is the objective measurement?

Liking the food != the food is good.

Good taste is not so subjective as you think it is. Your personal preferences, yeah, I don't care about them. But every professional taster keep their personal preferences out of the game and look for more objective criterias, like complexity, balance, off-flavors, aftertaste, typicity, presentation etc. For example if I order chicken and it does not taste like chicken, it's flawed, regardless if I like it or not.

It's the same with wine and whisky. It's not about your or their individual taste, it's about quality. It's okay that you like very sour, oxidized red wine. It's just not good wine.

>objective criterias, like complexity, balance, off-flavors, aftertaste, presentation

Those... simply aren't objective criteria. One persons off-flavor is another persons desired flavor (cilantro/coriander for an obvious example). What is the quantitative measure of "complexity" or "balance" in a dish?

I don't say it's really objective, I just say it's way less subjective than one might think.

Cilantro is not an off-flavor per se, it's just a flavor you like or don't. A cork tainted wine is an off-flavor. But if you don't like cilantro, it is indeed an off-flavor for you, but that is uninteresting. If I like burned meat, is a medium rare steak flawed for you?

> What is the quantitative measure of "complexity" or "balance" in a dish?

It's not measured with technology, it's measured with the tongue (+ nose) and experience of the taster. Interestingly, if you give the same dish or wine to real experts, you will probably get identical answers. So there is something there, but you have to get the experience and vocabulary to really judge a dish (or wine, or whatever).

> Cilantro is not an off-flavor per se, it's just a flavor you like or don't. A cork tainted wine is an off-flavor.

That isn't true at all. The flavor the cork adds is another flavor you like or don't like. People choose their preparation methods for flavor impact just like they choose ingredients for flavor impact. Look at smoked meat!

Eh, no wine maker adds TCA [0] into a wine bottle to make it taste like wet dogs. If you burn your sauce, that's probably an off-flavor. Smoked meat and cilantro taste like intended, no undesired flavors there.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4,6-Trichloroanisole

I brought up cilantro because I thought it was common-enough knowledge that, for some people, it does not taste like intended and is very much an off-flavor that can ruin an otherwise enjoyable dish.

> for some people, it does not taste like intended

Yes, but I still think, this corner case is much better handled at the service level than the dish level. I do know they ask for food allergies before, I do not know if they ask for your cilantro preferences.

You can't say (as a critic) "this dish was flawed, because it had cilantro in it", but you can say "I didn't enjoyed it, because it had cilantro in it".

> If you burn your sauce, that's probably an off-flavor.

Probably, but people burn meat on purpose.

> Probably, but people burn meat on purpose.

People also sometimes write poor code on purpose.

That is confusing off with undesired. In other words "would it still taste like this if the chef had spent more time/effort/money".

Cilantro tasting like cilantro -> great. Cilantro tasting like it is old/thawed/burnt -> not great.

Taste being "off" is about unintentional deviation.

Disagree. Clear-cut off-flavors are just those people tend to be in alignment about being undesired. (e.g. burnt). The flavor of cilantro can be intentionally present, but it's still an off-flavor for the minority of people who perceive it differently.

I would say it is an undesired flavor for these people not an off-flavor. And in the same vein I want a restaurant critic to tell me about off-flavors, but don't care if they personally like cilantro or not.

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification, that was a better follow-up than the OP could give.

Curiously, what is your opinion of UX/UI researchers? Or of design in general? Is the pretense of 'objectivity' something which denotes more value to you, generally?

You're the one that compared Michelin food inspectors to developers finding demonstrable deficiencies in a good-enough app; I'm asking if you can actually back that up or it was just a bad analogy.

If you don't actually think a food inspector can find objective flaws in good-tasting food, you probably shouldn't have made the analogy, nor depended on objective, not-obvious-to-users flaws as part of your argument.

In any case, don't criticize me for agreeing with your premise!

Over the years I've learned simply doing something is not a great way to get good at it, and neither is taking lessons from someone else that is good at it.

Now I'm a snowboard instructor I can teach someone in a week what took me months and months to learn on my own, and I can teach them the right way from the beginning.

Same story for mountain biking, lifting at the gym and even writing books. Of course the story is the same for programming, technical writing and everything else.

If you want to get good at something, take courses from a professional instructor of that thing (NOT just someone who is good at it!)

I think there's at least two levels here.

To go from nothing to something, a specialized instructor is the best. To go from something to the top tier, only then does following the best / doing something surpass that.

It's not that clear how your using lessons and courses differently here?

Sorry, I interchange the two words.

What I mean is if you want to get better (and actually professionally good at something) you need to get training (lessons, classes, courses, whatever you want to call it) from a professional teacher in that field - you won't get to pro level of good simply by doing, and you won't get to pro level taking lessons from someone else who is just good at it. They need to be a professional teacher in that field.

No one thinks that. It's just market confusion regarding what type of critic is Michelin. There are good critics that don't rate restaurants by their appeal to food nerds/wonks.