And it just ended up showing us so many radically different restaurants and we're on that first list.

You know, I think that one of the great things about this list is that it's so much more transparent than a lot of other lists.

For example, the New York Times list, a lot of people are like, how do they do this? What are the criteria here? I personally have asked the Michelin reps, how exactly do you guys take into account these different things? They won't answer questions about that kind of stuff, whereas...

Our list, we explain exactly where certain restaurants excelled, where they have opportunities to improve.

To me, it just makes all the difference in the world.

It makes it not hard to justify our scores.

We do a lot of the scoring out of on a one to 100 scale.

I have a responsibility to our readers to make sure that when they go to that place, that if we recommended it, they're going to have a great experience.