Love, Love, Love Lulu's!!!!

I concur with BC's comment concerning StyleWeekly. In my humble opinion it is the periodical to seek out each Wednesday for quality, thoughtful reviews on local food happenings, etc. That said I obviously read this site from time to time as well, and therefore offer my two cents on Lulu's because I can. I have eaten there once (not multiple times) and tried the lobster and crab fritters (the breading was a tad dry with no discernible seafood present); the little neck clams with chorizo (all I remember is salt, not steamed in enough white wine); Steve’s meatloaf, etc. (nice mushroom demi-glace and good potato mash, however it pales in comparison to Comfort’s meatloaf - a must try); the cheese tortellini (large portion for one – was enough to doggy bag, very cheesy, well seasoned save too much salt); and all three desserts (one boxed for takeaway): the strawberry shortcake (not memorable, few strawberries – Verbena’s is worth trying); the key lime pie (not that “key lime-y” – Joe’s Inn makes a better version); and the peanut butter pie (odd texture; very salty as if the incorrect peanut butter was used in the recipe). In all the food was noticeably salty (perhaps the work of an overzealous line cook on the night I was there), but is worth trying again especially since the menu has been updated for the summer season. And that’s that…some insight from my viewpoint on Richmond dining.

Richmonder, I think you're missing the point. I agree that many people can sling insults but if they attempted to write a review, suddenly it'd seem more difficult. I think the "disgruntled commentators" are making somewhat decent points because R.com's reviewer is being paid (aka a professional). Therefore, her critiques are held to higher standards than those of the blogs or whomever choses to review their "fav" place and post it on Richmond.com. Not everyone is paid to eat and write, so when you are, people are going to hold your words to more accountability than anyone with an email address that feels like commenting.

Or - you could take Richmond.com's way of allowing what readers say, when they say it, and how they say it to be published as being honest and oh, that big word in the field of journalism non-biased. You're right though, there are ignorant people in this city - and a few of you here sound like some of them. Have you ever tried to do a restaurant review? I encourage you to go to "your fav" place, review it and send it into Richmond.com. Let's see how well you do and how well you can even form a sentence. Better yet - submit it in the comment section - let's see what you've got disgruntled commentators!

Couldn't agree more with "Disagree" and "BC." Most reader comments on inRich and here are so completely ignorant it's enough to make you want to move to another city. People paid to write about any subject (restaurants, movies, concerts) are supposed to provide as much info as possible. I understand the monetary limitations — just look at how the RTD is self-destructing with budget cuts and subscription hikes — but that doesn't mean many (not all) of their regular critics (dining, movies, etc.) are skimping on their critiques.

Richmond.com's interest in being taken seriously as a dining guide continues to decline.

Paying for a pro reviewer to go to a restaurant once, and order 2 items???

Continuing to have a dining search engine that has essentially been broken for months?

Continuing to seemingly pick and choose which newer establishments to review, based on who knows what?

While Richmond magazine is still above average for dining interest, the website has taken a strong nosedive. Style Weekly and InRich are lapping it, and that's sad to say.

Funny that the wine list impressed you; I found that to be the weakest link of the place. Oh, and that stupid TV that has to be blaring all the time. We had to wait at the bar and some 'neck requested that they put NASCAR on...and they DID!!!!

Whatever Dude: I don't think you understand what a "restaurant review" written by a member of the media is. To give an accurate assessment of a restaurant, you must try more than two dishes and never say something "looked good" unless you actually try it. If the reviewer needed to order more dishes (which she did), she should have returned. No professional reviewer would order everything on the menu in one sitting.

Please refrain from commenting until you study up a bit on journalism.

Foodlover: I agree. The review is disappointing not because LuLu's "is my fav" but because it wasn't thorough enough.

I don't mean to continue the review bashing, but I must concur w/ the other two comments. It is hard to believe that this person has experience as a reviewer --isn't the first rule of a professional review MULTIPLE VISITS? The abundance of local blogs that review restaurants (and many of these well written) can be forgiven for posting reviews after one visit, but one from a professional? nah . . .

This is a disappointing review...it is based on trying only two dishes and merely listing the menu. "The salads looked good?" I cannot take this review seriously. Please try again when you have actually tasted more items on the menu.