I often ‘rage-click’ on an entry when a new eatery appears on the listicle which I feel isn’t worthy, just to find out why it made the list. But then… I suppose that’s just the whole point, isn’t it.?
#ClicksMakeTheWorldGoRound
4 Likes
Choosing to limit it to 38 is on them. As it stands, it’s just f’n stupid. “Let’s keep Langer’s and Providence on in perpituity because they truly are essential, but imma add Pizzana in place of Park’s…”
2 Likes
Seems like not such a bad list. All the restaurants that I’ve been to are at least decent except Musso & Frank and Langer’s.
The restaurants on the previous list were so essential they were removed from the list.
My question is what makes them essential and not now? What has changed to make them non essential now?
4 Likes
thanks for the feedback. I hear you and hope you can understand a bit of how the free Internet content system works, which is to maximize SEO and relevance to gain viewership. But more than that, we’re trying our best to provide a serviceable guide on what we think are standout restaurants in a city as immense as LA, which is truly an impossible task. The best way we feel to approach this is to have a list that feels alive and vibrant and reflects the tastes/sensibilities of its editors. I would love to see your list of 25 or 50 best or favorite LA restaurants, and how that looks today, and how that looks a year from when you first assemble it. I agree that a lot of places would likely stay on there year over year, but we do feel the four times a year cadence allows newer restaurants and places that are worth celebrating to have their day in the sun, so to speak. Know that ultimately opinions about restaurants are subjective and based on a finite number of visits/data. No one person can go to 1000 restaurants a year (I mean, you could, but it’d be bad for your health and wallet!)
18 Likes
We tried inventing that wheel a few years back. If someone else wants to compile a 2022 list, that would be perfect.
2 Likes
To be consistent, Eater should never say “the essential.” E.g. the headline is “38 Essential Restaurants in Los Angeles,” which doesn’t suggest that there are only 38, but the last line of the introductory blurb says, “here now, the 38 essential restaurants in Los Angeles,” which does.
“We” did not.
… and that’s where it ends.
8 Likes
easier said than done, right?
4 Likes
Can I ask why Eater updates the lists but doesn’t archive previous versions? I’ve wondered about this before but haven’t seen anyone address it directly.
Personally, I would find it valuable 1) to see how lists change over time as you mentioned and 2) to be able to bookmark lists from specific times that may have information new to me. I’ve definitely put Eater list URLs on some personal document only to find the restaurants I was interested in were swapped out later and I don’t know how to find them again.
4 Likes
I’ve been the Los Angeles and Santa Monica Destination Expert at TripAdvisor for a long, long, time and often direct tourists to the 38 Essential List. I more often link to the Rooftop List or Views List, or the Santa Monica List, since that’s what’s requested most (a view or beach restaurant). The Essential List used to be truly essential, but has become more niche, more for adventurous eaters, but it’s always a great link to peruse when trying to decide where to go.
2 Likes
I think part of it comes down to the intended audience. If it’s meant for locals who are somewhat familiar with the LA restaurant landscape and thus there’s the desire to keep the list fresh and rotating, that would be one thing. In that case, the name “essential” is a misnomer though.
If the list is intended to be a summary of top spots in the city, such that someone new to LA could see a consolidation of the must-try places for a variety of cuisines, it’s a fail. It would be great if Eater had such a list and something you could rely on when travelling to other cities. As it stands now though, a traveler to LA wanting the best sushi would be directed to an “unsung” spot in Redondo, or to trying Country Style Jamaican Restaurant instead of places like Mozzaplex/Kato/Howlin/Petit/Coni/etc
Again, love Eater and all they do. And it’s a great list. It should just either serve as the go-to link for the essential spots (i.e., Eater’s abbreviated equivalent of the 101 Best), or the name should be changed to something more accurate like 38 Great Restaurants.
1 Like
but they do
1 Like
Ahh, that’s a different list altogether. I actually like that 18 Hottest list as it’s a great consolidation of new places that are getting attention. Not necessarily the best restaurants in their class, and typically not “essential” yet, but new and buzz worthy. It’s exactly what it says it is. I use it often both in LA and when traveling
1 Like
It’s very time-consuming and expensive to produce a good “best of” list. That’s why Bill Addison did nothing else for a few months while updating the LA Times 101. And they don’t give it away for free.
“Essential” is as good a single word as any for describing Eater’s 38 lists. If they said “great” it wouldn’t give them the slack to include Pie’n Burger, Langer’s, or Ruen Pair.
1 Like
we regularly redirect older maps to new ones so clean up the SEO. unfortunately there’s no way to access the older versions directly 
so maybe just screen shot? idk I don’t have a more elegant solution.
1 Like
That makes sense, I guess.
Yeah, if I screenshot the info it probably drops into the murky ether never to be seen again. Then again, the way I usually store this info is hardly any better so I certainly have no elegant solutions on my end.
I find it strange that there are zero entries for Little India in Artesia…
4 Likes
Yea wtf 