I don't usually read food blog. I go to these sites for updates of new restaurants in town and mostly (1) just to look at the pictures and (2) the address and business hour.
I saw this article about a new cafe I've noticed. At the exact shoplot, the previous business was also a cafe, and disappointed to say the former cafe served really lousy food. The new cafe is known for the similar thing the previous cafe was: bright beautiful interior, cool spacious balcony seating, interesting food presentation.
Hence, I'm quite skeptical about the new cafe. I wanted to know if the food in new cafe taste the same. I read every word of the article. Fantastic grammar and fancy words, but they're all just fluff: they serve distinctive french toast, with [different types of fruits].
You know who else serves -distinctive- food? The previous cafe.
I left a message at the blog to ask for elaboration on their food. The author replied "The dishes all had interesting ingredients added to them that made them taste a bit different than expected."
I can't help but to read it in sarcastic tone. Sure, I can put wasabi in french toast and make it taste -very- different than expected, too.
I read through the article many times, but no, it's mostly neutral adjectives and list of ingredients used in the dishes but not the description of how the food turn out to be. It's either someone is trying to be polite or this is what food blogs are becoming: to cover as many diners as possible to draw readership, put together a few words just to fill the space.
I know this will have readers wondering about the food and just have to give it a try.
But that also means less credibility for the food blog because every diners will be mentioned, everything sounds interesting at their site. At the end, no one is distinctive.
Of course, I do still see good food articles around, and it's fun to read them. But food blogs that give me half-hearted work, I guess I can understand why you're not enthusiasted about the diner you cover.