All points
3897 words
- Joshua Weissman set out to test whether America's harshest one-star fast-food reviews were justified. He visited eight restaurants, ordered the foods criticized by reviewers, examined the complaints, and assigned his own ratings based on what he experienced.
- Weissman admitted that he had written extremely harsh one-star fast-food reviews for years. He said his motivation was believing customers deserved better food, but increasingly extreme online complaints made him question whether some reviewers were being fair.
- The investigation focused on food quality, service, cleanliness, waiting times, pricing, and alleged safety problems. Several reviews included photographs or allegations of foreign objects in food, which Weissman treated as particularly serious claims worth investigating.
- El Zarape in Denver, Colorado, had a reputation for serving some of the city's best burritos. Weissman began there despite several highly critical reviews questioning its food quality and safety.
- Jenny L. alleged finding a screw in food purchased from El Zarape. Her family had ordered two pounds of barbacoa, and her review included a photograph of an assembled taco containing what appeared to be a screw.
- Weissman questioned the circumstances of Jenny's photograph. Because she had ordered barbacoa in bulk, with meat and tortillas supplied separately, he wondered how the photographed, fully assembled taco had come to contain the screw. He suspected the image might have been staged but offered no proof.
- Guillermo H. complained that El Zarape's Bistec a la Mexicana appeared to have been blended rather than properly prepared. He said he informed a waiter, received no satisfactory response, and decided never to return.
- Nicole T. accused El Zarape of poor food, misleading website advertising, rude service, and deteriorating premises. She specifically complained about an additional charge for avocado, a dirty building that appeared to be falling apart, and pancakes that tasted refrigerated.
- El Zarape's physical condition contradicted Nicole's description during Weissman's visit. He found the restaurant surprisingly clean, considered the building attractive, and saw no obvious deterioration.
- El Zarape's staff were friendly and provided avocado without charging Weissman extra. This directly contradicted the treatment described in Nicole's review, although it did not establish what happened during her earlier visit.
- El Zarape's pancakes appeared freshly prepared and were cooked well. Weissman watched them being made and found them moist, properly cooked, slightly crisp around the edges, and free of the alleged refrigerated flavor.
- The Bistec a la Mexicana was chopped rather than blended. Weissman found the meat flavorful and sufficiently fatty to remain moist, although it was fully cooked despite the server asking whether he wanted it medium-rare.
- The eggs accompanying El Zarape's bistec were particularly well prepared. Weissman praised their runny yolks, crisp edges, and seasoning, calling the overall dish delicious.
- Weissman found no screw or scrap metal in the El Zarape tacos he examined. He did bite into a small bone while eating the barbacoa, but otherwise found the meat delicious. This did not prove Jenny's earlier allegation was false.
- El Zarape received four out of five stars. Weissman praised the helpful counter staff, properly chopped bistec, fresh pancakes, and flavorful barbacoa, concluding that the restaurant performed substantially better than its worst reviews suggested.
- Dan's Hamburgers in Austin, Texas, had operated since 1973. The restaurant was presented as an old-established burger business with sharply conflicting customer experiences.
- Gary T. said he and his wife had patronized Dan's for more than 30 years before deciding to stop. His review described cold hamburger buns, greasy and tasteless meat, green tomatoes, soggy lettuce, and flavorless cheese.
- Gary also criticized Dan's side dishes and drinks. He described cold, limp, tasteless onion rings and two melted chocolate milkshakes that allegedly tasted like medicine.
- Morris P. rated Dan's below McDonald's in overall quality. He complained about a stale bun, gray and flavorless hamburger patty, and extremely small quantities of onion and pickle, arguing that the restaurant had become terrible even if it was once good.
- Jeremy reported a wet-dog smell inside Dan's and criticized its burgers and fries. He described soggy buns and cold, oily fries, suggested he should have gone to the nearby Whataburger, but acknowledged that Dan's root beer was good.
- Weissman noticed a smell resembling a wet dog at Dan's. This was one of the unusual customer complaints his visit partially supported.
- Dan's root beer earned unqualified praise. Weissman agreed with Jeremy that it tasted good, making it one of the clearest points of agreement between a negative reviewer and his own experience.
- Dan's burger buns had a genuine temperature and texture problem. The bottom bun was below room temperature, the top was slightly warmer, and part of the bread broke apart when touched. Weissman later described the buns as quite soggy.
- The actual beef at Dan's was considerably better than Morris and Gary had described. Weissman found it beefy, properly salted, and reasonably flavorful rather than gray or tasteless. The meat was somewhat greasy, but not unpleasantly so.
- Dan's burger toppings did not match every negative claim. The tomatoes were not green, and the burger contained noticeable pickles rather than the nearly nonexistent portions described by Morris.
- Dan's onion rings were crisp and properly cooked but almost completely unseasoned. Weissman considered the lack of salt a serious defect because it left the onions tasting bland despite their good texture.
- Dan's french fries had the same seasoning problem. They were crisp, tasted like fresh potatoes, and were neither limp nor soggy, but lacked the salt Weissman considered essential.
- Dan's chocolate milkshake was ordinary rather than disgusting. Weissman said it was far from an excellent shake but found no medicinal flavor, contradicting Gary's more extreme description.
- Dan's Hamburgers received two out of five stars, the lowest rating of the eight restaurants visited. Weissman considered the restaurant acceptable but unimpressive, with soggy buns and insufficiently seasoned sides undermining otherwise decent beef and properly cooked food.
- El Pollo Rico faced allegations involving both food poisoning and physical contaminants. Its negative reviews raised more serious potential safety concerns than ordinary disagreements about flavor.
- Matt F. reported projectile vomiting and diarrhea shortly after eating at El Pollo Rico. Despite this alleged illness, he acknowledged that the chicken itself was good.
- Matt criticized El Pollo Rico's rice, beans, and green sauce. He described the rice as plain, the beans as soupy with unidentified chunks resembling hot dog pieces, and the green sauce as tasting like cardboard or something rotten.
- Jose O. alleged biting into a staple while eating nachos from El Pollo Rico. His review included a photograph and accused the employees of irresponsibility. Weissman regarded the image as concerning but could not establish the circumstances of the alleged incident.
- El Pollo Rico served Weissman half a grilled chicken accompanied by an onion. He found the chicken well seasoned and flavorful, although slightly overcooked, and considered it an excellent fast-food offering overall.
- El Pollo Rico's rice was well seasoned rather than bland. Weissman specifically praised its salt level and flavor, rejecting Matt's description of plain rice.
- El Pollo Rico's beans were visibly soupy and contained unidentified pieces. That partly matched Matt's description, but Weissman found the broth tasty and considered the beans decent despite not ranking them among his favorites.
- El Pollo Rico's green sauce was one of its stronger items. Weissman described it as a pleasant, creamy jalapeño salsa, finding none of the rotten or cardboard-like flavor alleged in Matt's review.
- Weissman's nachos from El Pollo Rico contained no staples. He found them crisp and delicious, though his experience could not determine whether Jose had previously encountered a staple.
- El Pollo Rico received four out of five stars. Weissman praised its grilled chicken, seasoned rice, green sauces, and nachos, saying the food made him interested in trying more of the menu.
- Astro Burger in Los Angeles was presented as a long-established restaurant with celebrity associations. Weissman noted its reputation as a place where celebrities might eat after award ceremonies, contrasting that history with recent negative customer reviews.
- Young H. said Astro Burger's food was unpleasant, overpriced, and inferior to McDonald's. The review offered a strongly negative judgment without much specific supporting detail.
- Emil M. criticized Astro Burger's parking, slow service, unfriendly staff, and food quality. He also complained that orders were not announced when ready and that the establishment operated on a cash-only basis.
- Roxanne O. alleged receiving an old, bad-smelling fish sandwich at Astro Burger. She said the restaurant had only one cashier, who was rude and refused either to exchange the sandwich or refund her money.
- A photograph accompanying Roxanne's review influenced Weissman's decision to investigate the fish sandwich. He considered the image concerning despite criticizing the review's presentation and punctuation.
- Rono S. said Astro Burger had been one of his favorites since the 1970s. After approximately 45 years of positive experiences, he reported two disappointing visits within one month and announced he would not return.
- Rono believed Astro Burger had changed its hamburger meat. He said both recent burgers were overcooked, no longer tasted like the product he remembered, and represented declining quality at rising prices.
- Astro Burger's owner, identified as Andrew, publicly responded to Rono. He apologized for the disappointing experiences and said the restaurant normally cooked its meats medium-well unless customers requested otherwise.
- Andrew defended Astro Burger's beef as Choice-quality meat. He described it as the best the business could buy. Weissman disagreed with the owner's characterization of Choice beef as especially high quality.
- Andrew attributed Astro Burger's higher prices to broader cost increases. Weissman accepted that explanation as a legitimate challenge of operating a restaurant, rather than treating every price increase as evidence of exploitation.
- Astro Burger's parking was better than its reviews suggested. Weissman found a reasonably sized, largely available parking lot, especially by Los Angeles standards.
- Astro Burger's employee interactions were mixed but not openly hostile. The cashier appeared unhappy or withdrawn, while a recently hired fry cook was particularly friendly. Someone at the restaurant also recognized Weissman by name and introduced himself as Zach.
- Astro Burger's cheeseburger was cooked well-done despite the owner's stated medium-well standard. Weissman found the meat lacked salt but had an appealing charred, beefy flavor. He considered it comparable to an ordinary hotel-pool burger: acceptable, not exceptional.
- Astro Burger's fish sandwich did not resemble Roxanne's alarming description. Weissman found the fish crisp, moist, properly cooked, and visually appealing, with no indication of the unpleasant condition she reported.
- Astro Burger received three out of five stars. Weissman considered both the burger and fish sandwich acceptable, while identifying overcooking and insufficient seasoning as genuine weaknesses.
- Torchy's Tacos was described as a well-known Austin restaurant, but reviewers disputed whether its reputation was justified. Complaints involved slow service, poor tacos, flies, and even the restaurant's choice of background music.
- Hans reported waiting 14 minutes for a single chicken fajita taco at Torchy's. He described the food as merely adequate, said he would have preferred Taco Bell, and complained about hearing U2's "In the Name of Love" over the sound system.
- Amanda P. specifically warned customers against Torchy's Spicewood location. She said the Crossroads taco tasted burnt and vomit-like, while the Green Chili Pork failed to meet her expectations of a good taco.
- Dan F. criticized a Torchy's breakfast taco for its egg, avocado, and texture. He described an oversized yellow egg mass, a tiny avocado portion, an apparent lack of pico de gallo, and tortilla pieces that were mushy rather than crisp.
- Mark complained about a serious housefly problem at Torchy's. He advised avoiding the Trailer Park, Brushfire, and Republican tacos, considered the Tipsy Chick acceptable, criticized the flour tortillas, and said he would bring fly swatters if he returned.
- Torchy's served Weissman substantially faster than Hans had experienced. He measured approximately 42 seconds before reaching the counter and received a large order within about six minutes.
- The employee taking Weissman's order at Torchy's was friendly. His experience did not support a general picture of particularly difficult or unpleasant service.
- The housefly complaint at Torchy's had some basis during Weissman's visit. Flies were present and irritated him while eating, although he did not quantify their number or establish that the problem matched Mark's earlier experience.
- Torchy's was not playing U2 during Weissman's visit. This prevented him from reproducing Hans's music complaint, which he treated humorously rather than as a serious food-quality issue.
- The Trailer Park, Republican, and Brushfire tacos were all enjoyable. Weissman disagreed with Mark's recommendation to avoid them and said he would order each again.
- Torchy's Crossroads taco was smoky rather than unpleasantly burnt. Weissman praised its combination of brisket, avocado, cheese, and pickled jalapeño. He acknowledged that it was far from traditional Mexican food but considered it delicious.
- The Green Chili Pork was one of Torchy's strongest tacos. Its pork was juicy, properly salted, and flavorful, with onion, cilantro, lime, and a corn tortilla giving it a more traditional presentation and taste.
- Torchy's breakfast taco partly confirmed Dan's complaints. Weissman found the filling resembled a large mass of egg, and an avocado stem had been left on the food.
- The breakfast taco's tortilla pieces were crisp rather than mushy. However, Weissman found the egg bland and insufficiently salted. The taco was not cold or disgusting, but it was mediocre.
- The Tipsy Chick was Weissman's least favorite taco of the visit. Contrary to Mark's relatively positive assessment, he considered it the blandest option because the chicken lacked seasoning.
- Torchy's received four out of five stars. Weissman concluded that its tacos were not especially traditional but were generally delicious, and that its fast service made the experience worthwhile despite some legitimate criticisms.
- Crown Burgers was described as a restaurant whose gyros attracted particular attention despite its burger-focused name. Its extensive signage and confusing menu contrasted with reviews emphasizing the restaurant's nostalgic appeal.
- Dylan D. associated Crown Burgers with childhood memories. His positive comment suggested the business held sentimental value for at least some customers, though it provided little information about current food quality.
- River G. alleged that a Crown Burgers employee responded abusively to a telephone call. According to the review, the person answering told the caller to perform a vulgar sexual act on himself.
- Weissman tested Crown Burgers' telephone service by asking about closing time. The employee politely explained that the restaurant would close at seven that day and ended the call courteously. He encountered none of the abuse described by River.
- Steve M. reported waiting 20 minutes inside a hot, stuffy Crown Burgers restaurant for a disappointing gyro. He said the dish contained excessive feta cheese and only four pieces of meat.
- The Crown Burgers gyro Weissman received did contain four pieces of meat. However, the pieces were long enough that he considered the overall meat portion reasonable rather than exceptionally small.
- Crown Burgers' gyro meat did not seem freshly prepared, but was adequately seasoned. Weissman praised its fattiness, warm pita, and fresh vegetables, concluding that the product was decent without being exceptional.
- Crown Burgers received three out of five stars. Weissman considered its gyro acceptable but not outstanding, rejecting Steve's extreme description while acknowledging that the meat did not seem particularly fresh.
- Hat Creek faced complaints about bland food, parking, pricing, and employee behavior. Weissman introduced it as a burger business with relatively few locations and sharply divided customer opinions.
- Garry C. described Hat Creek's food as almost flavorless and its parking as extremely inconvenient. He advised people to avoid the restaurant altogether.
- Apple J. complained that a six-dollar Hat Creek burger required an additional dollar for American cheese. The reviewer said the cheese was not melted and argued that the restaurant's pricing and presentation represented poor value.
- Apple also described a dispute with Hat Creek's drive-through employees. The reviewer said staff became offended because the customer was speaking loudly while on a telephone call.
- Walter F. described Hat Creek's burger as bitter and criticized the seasoning on its fries. He objected to the red-colored seasoning powder, dismissed the milkshakes as excessively sweet, and assigned a zero-out-of-ten judgment in the text of a one-star review.
- Weissman deliberately staged a loud telephone conversation while ordering from Hat Creek's drive-through. He wanted to test whether the staff would react negatively, as Apple had alleged.
- The Hat Creek employee did not object to Weissman's staged call. She remained pleasant and appeared amused. Weissman suspected she might have recognized that the conversation was fake.
- Hat Creek's milkshake was substantially better than Dan's. Weissman found it delicious despite its sweetness, which he considered normal for a drink made from blended ice cream.
- Hat Creek's shoestring fries were crisp and well seasoned. Weissman particularly praised the salt and spicy seasoning that Walter had disliked.
- Hat Creek's burger was juicy, flavorful, and properly seasoned. Weissman noticed fresh pepper, appreciated its beef flavor, and found none of the extreme blandness alleged by Garry.
- Hat Creek's burger contained melted American cheese. This directly contradicted Apple's complaint about unmelted cheese, although Weissman's order was a separate transaction.
- Hat Creek's toppings and bread contributed to the positive verdict. Weissman praised its crisp pickles and soft, fluffy potato bun, considering the burger among the better examples he tried during the investigation.
- Hat Creek received four out of five stars. Weissman considered its food quality strong enough that he struggled to understand its poor reviews, particularly given the good fries, milkshake, and cheeseburger he received.
- El Huero was the final restaurant visited and was described as a local favorite facing complaints under new ownership. The transcript did not establish when the ownership changed or directly connect individual food problems to specific management decisions.
- Max accused El Huero of consistently mediocre or terrible food and excessive waiting times. He singled out a carne asada burrito that he considered nearly flavorless and so poorly constructed that its contents spilled over his hand.
- Max had returned to El Huero five times despite repeatedly disappointing experiences. Weissman questioned why someone who found the restaurant so bad continued returning, suggesting that the repeated visits made the review's account unusual.
- Areiona H. alleged finding an entire toothpick inside her second taco from El Huero. She said she ordered three tacos through the drive-through, drove across the street, and discovered the toothpick while eating.
- Areiona said the alleged toothpick was covered in cheese and sour cream. She reported immediately spitting out the food and alerting her fiancé before returning to the restaurant to confront employees.
- Areiona further alleged that an employee had a toothpick in his mouth when she confronted him. This detail suggested a possible way a toothpick might have entered the food, but the review did not establish that explanation as fact.
- Weissman ordered a carne asada burrito and carnitas tacos from El Huero. He specifically selected items relevant to the complaints about flavor, construction, and foreign objects.
- El Huero took seven minutes and 30 seconds to prepare Weissman's order. He considered this slower than McDonald's-style service but not an unreasonable wait.
- Weissman did not observe a toothpick in the El Huero employee's mouth. He also found no toothpick in the tacos he received, although this could not determine what happened during Areiona's earlier visit.
- The carne asada burrito held together better than Max's description suggested. Weissman encountered no comparable problem with its contents spilling out and considered its taste pleasantly better than expected.
- El Huero's food was satisfactory without being exceptional. Weissman said the burrito was not among the best he had eaten, but neither was it remotely as bad as the harsh review implied.
- El Huero's service was friendly during Weissman's visit. He specifically praised receiving service with a smile.
- El Huero received three out of five stars. Weissman considered its food and service acceptable and was relieved not to encounter the safety problem alleged in Areiona's review.
- All eight restaurants received higher ratings than the one-star reviews that prompted their selection. Four restaurants received four stars, three received three stars, and one received two stars. None received a one-star rating from Weissman.
- The four highest-rated restaurants were El Zarape, El Pollo Rico, Torchy's Tacos, and Hat Creek. Each earned four out of five stars despite serious or strongly worded customer complaints.
- Astro Burger, Crown Burgers, and El Huero occupied the middle of Weissman's rankings. Each earned three stars because the food was acceptable but had limitations involving preparation, freshness, seasoning, or overall quality.
- Dan's Hamburgers was the clearest case in which Weissman found meaningful quality problems. Its soggy, cold buns and poorly seasoned sides helped explain some negative customer experiences, even though the beef, root beer, and cooking of the sides were better than several reviews suggested.
- Poor seasoning emerged as a repeated problem across otherwise acceptable restaurants. Dan's fries and onion rings, Astro Burger's beef, and Torchy's breakfast taco all suffered from insufficient salt, demonstrating how a basic preparation issue could reduce an otherwise satisfactory meal's quality.
- Some negative reviews contained genuine observations mixed with exaggerated judgments. Dan's had an unusual smell and soggy buns; Crown Burgers' gyro did contain four pieces of meat; Torchy's had flies and a large egg filling; El Pollo Rico's beans were soupy. Weissman nevertheless disagreed with the reviewers' overall assessments in each case.
- Several customer complaints proved highly dependent on the particular visit. Staff behavior, food temperature, waiting times, freshness, and preparation could differ between orders, so Weissman's favorable experiences did not conclusively establish that earlier customers were dishonest.
- Photographs made some alarming complaints more compelling but did not independently establish their authenticity or causes. Weissman examined images alleging a screw, staple, spoiled fish sandwich, and toothpick, but could not verify the original incidents through his later purchases.
- The investigation did not establish whether El Pollo Rico caused Matt's reported illness. Weissman enjoyed the restaurant's food, but his favorable tasting experience was not a test of the earlier customer's medical allegation.
- Weissman increasingly suspected that some reviewers were trying to damage restaurants rather than describe experiences fairly. This was his interpretation of the extreme language and the differences between certain reviews and his own visits, not a demonstrated motive of any named reviewer.
- The episode distinguished legitimate criticism from disproportionate condemnation. Weissman remained willing to identify actual defects and give low ratings, but objected to sweeping claims that made an entire restaurant appear dangerous or worthless when some aspects of its food and service were acceptable.
- The closing message warned against treating individual online reviews as reliable representations of a restaurant. Weissman believed readers should remain skeptical of extreme claims and recognize that a single bad experience may not reflect the quality of every visit.
- Weissman concluded that reviewers have a responsibility to be accurate because their words can affect restaurants long after the immediate frustration has passed. His final argument was that a customer's annoyance may last only minutes, while a damaging online review can remain visible indefinitely.