There's been all sorts of debate these days over whether restaurant critics should even attempt to remain anonymous. It started with the outing of Philadelphia Inquirer critic Craig LaBan, but then continued with Danyelle Freeman, the blogger-turned-critic for the New York Daily News (her picture is all over the internet). Does the visual identity of a restaurant critic need to be concealed them to be able to do their job effectively? Many are weighing in on the debate these days, what do you, oh wise Slashfood readers, think?

Some seem to think that restaurateur Jeffrey Chodorow's grudge against NY Times restaurant critic Frank Bruni runs deeper than just one bad review. Chodorow has, after all, said that he feels his restaurants have always gotten the short stick from the reviewer. A recent piece on Page Six of the NY Post seems to confirm this, as Chodorow has just announce that Bruni is banned from all of his 29 restaurants.

For those of you wondering how the Chodorow plans to ban someone whose looks are supposed to be a secret, just know that restaurant staffs make it their business to unmask restaurant critics whenever possible, many kitchens will have a wall of critics and other notable people to keep an eye out for. Chodorow's employees have an extra reason to look for Bruni because Jeffrey has offered a free trip for two to the Caribbean to the first person to recognize him. As insurance to make sure he is seen, Chodorow plans to post a photo of Bruni on his personal blog sometime soon.

Every restaurant wants to get a good review in the paper, whether they actually like the reviewer or not, and there have been so many books from the critic's perspective (Garlic and Sapphires, for example) that most people don't have a clue has to how a restaurant actually handles a review, good and bad. The Denver Posts's dining critic, Tucker Shaw, sat down with restaurateur Danny Meyer to try to get some perspective on how reviews are seen from the other side of the kitchen door.

Meyer has 11 New York restaurants, including Grammercy Tavern and Eleven Madison Park, so he is certainly no stranger to reviews. He says that all reviews will have positive and negative consequences, regardless of the content of the review. Reviews bring the team together, creating a support system that helps the kitchen perform better. Negative reviews not only drive customers away, but they also drop morale, meaning that some staff members might leave, too. Positive reviews can set the bar too high, leaving new customers disappointed and spreading negative word-of-mouth.

Meyer, while he and his staff members have some coping strategies, also said that restaurant critics and restaurants need each other to some degree and, no matter what the reviews are like, he tries to make sure that everything is always done the best that it can be. In the end, he rightly points out, it is the diner that makes the final decision, whether they believe the review or not.

Time Out New York has just done something a bit unusual. They have turned the tables on New York's critics and have given them reviews using a panel of distinguished experts in each of the various fields covered. Of course, at Slashfood, we're more interested in what they thought of NY's finest food critics, than of the art or theater reviewers. All were scored on a scale from 1 to 5 in the following categories: Knowledge, Style, Taste, Accessibility and Influence. Those scores were then averaged to reach a final score. A star rating might have been a little more appropriate, but this seems like a balanced way to quantify their performances.

Topping their list with a score of 4.08 is Peter Meehan, from the New York Times. He is usually featured in the "$25 and Under" column. His reviews were described as "smart, witty and very sensible...fair and almost always [place] the consumer first." Number two, with a score of 3.78 is Steve Cuozzo, from the New York Post. "Entertaining as hell to read... it's just too bad that he works for the least credible outlet in town." The other reviewers reviewed were: Adam Platt, multiple publications, 3.72 (No class at all: The words subtle and elegant are not in his vocabulary."); Irene Sax, NY Daily News, 3.68 ("The best cheap-eats columnist ever."); Frank Bruni, The New York Times, 3.64 ("Bruni is the George Bush of restaurant reviewers: He's a little man in a big job who got lucky but has never acknowledged the need to learn on this big job.... He's got an unfortunate, clear bias toward the Italian palate, and it shows in print."); Robert Sietsema, The Village Voice, 3.4 ("A joke."); Moira Hodgson, New York Observer, 3.3 ("stylish and congenial")

I am a big fan of the SF Chronicle's Michael Bauer's blog, Between Meals, and have mentioned issues that he has brought up before. His post yesterday was particularly interesting though, bringing up the issue of whether food critics should somehow be licensed, after a commenter mentioned that there was a lack of standards in the industry.  Such a task, however, might be nearly impossible. Would "taste" be judged? Writing ability? Tests could be implemented in all industries, but the reality of working is that the best way to get good at something is to do it - over and over again. Writers have to write and chefs have to cook. Critics have to learn how to convey the unique experience of dining at a restaurant to their readers because chefs do not all use identical recipes and there is no one "right" way to make a marinara sauce.

As Bauer rightly points out, "Good chefs rise to the top, and good critics develop a following." A good critic's readers can trust what they write and use their recommendation as a means to decide when to try (or not to try) a restaurant. Of the skills a critic needs - ability, knowledge and passion - only one can be taught or tested, while the others come naturally and over time.

The standards of taste are not hard and fast rules and people look to critics to create a baseline, a jumping off point from which they can form their own judgments. The only hard and fast rules I want to see are the ones that the health department enforces.

According to consumer groups, the beer industry's standards for advertising are not high enough. And they're not talking about their propensity to appeal to the lowest common denominator by showing belching contests and bikini-clad women. The New York Times reports that critics are upset because they do not feel the industry is abiding by their own standards and is still producing ads which are seen by children.

The industry self regulates via the Beer Institute, which creates guidelines and monitors advertising content. Their standard is to only air beer ads when no more than 30 percent of the audience is under the legal drinking age. Steven Rowe, attorney general of Maine and vocal critic, stands firm in his believe that the standard should be lowered to 15 percent. Critics also feel that the Beer Institute's advertising code, which state ads "should not portray beer drinking before or during activities, which for safety reasons, require a high degree of alertness or coordination," is being violated in ads. To support their "unsafe activities" claim, fingers are pointed at the ad aired during the Olympics that showed men drinking beer while pretending to be fixing their roofs, though beer companies stated that commercials obviously meant as parody were exceptions to the "unsafe activities" code, not violating any standards.

Sometimes restaurant reviews seem to skew towards the negative - so why bother reading them when you can get the gist from the headline? The Seattle Post Intelligencer critic stepped up to try and answer that very question this week. The headlines are only a glimpse of what the review was about and a half dozen words, except in very rare cases, is hardly capable of conveying the full experience that a review offers. Another potentially misleading element of a review is the number of stars or the numerical rating it received. A subjectively determined numerical value will give you even less information than the headline alone because you can't get a sense of the criteria used to justify the rating.

Newspapers tend to review new restaurants, which are more likely to be hit-or-miss on any given day during their infancy than a meal at a long lasting neighborhood favorite. Their kitchen might not be fully synched or perhaps they haven't settled on a menu of their best dishes. Time can change a restaurant for better or worse, and an early review may not tell the whole story.