Neither LEO Weekly's print nor online versions of Robin Garr's Hillbilly Tea review contained a numerical rating. But the version of his article that he copies and then he pastes into his Louisville Hot Bytes site does (what, no one else reads all three versions of Garr's reviews?). Et tu, LEO? In the version of the review on his site, Garr scored Hillbilly Tea an 80—yes, careful reader, that's two points lower than his rating for Chipotle (despite the latter's confusing food-delivery procedure). "White bean and sage fritters ($5) were crunchy, golden brown fried rounds of subtly herb-scented bean puree, and dark mahogany crispy chicken liver bites ($6) were admirably grease-free, too. But the former could have used a little salt, and the latter required it. We hailed a server and liberated S&P from the kitchen. Bright yellow scrambled eggs brought free-range color and flavor to the Hillbilly scramble' ($8), but I'd have liked them fluffier. A 'smashed' red potato provided starch, and I'd have liked my slice of grilled focaccia left on the grill a little longer. The grilled catfish sandwich ($7) was built on delicious smoked-fish fillets. A side of fresh kale was bright-green and not cooked into submission."
The mystery of the missing ratings in the Louisville Courier-Journal's online restaurant reviews has been explained! Employees on the print side started formatting the articles differently, causing the ratings to stop flowing correctly to the web version. A C-J online producer noticed the problem and fixed it last week. She's since left the C-J though, so, guess what: this week's online version of Marty Rosen's Little Jerusalem Cafe review contained no score. Let's just deduce a