Thai Ground Pork with Pineapple (Sorta)

Categories: food — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , — Posted by: Grant @ March 25, 2008 : 9:28 pm

Thai Pineapple Turkey

Thai Pineapple Turkey, 2

Ingredients:
1 lb ground pork (I used ground turkey)
1 ripe, medium pineapple
1 cucumber
2 teaspoons pepper
4 tablespoons fish sauce
3 tablespoons chopped garlic
3 tablespoons chopped cilantro
2 tablespoons olive oil
mortar and pestle
(optional) 1 thai red chili pepper
(optional) small bunch of cilantro
(optional) small bunch of sliced carrots

I know, Grant isn’t posting about geek stuff for a change. After so much eating out, reviews and coding, I’ve decided to take some time off over the next month. I’m going to re-acquaint myself with some long lost hobbies- namely, cooking!

This my interpretation of a common Thai dish that is easy to make, healthy and tastealicious to boot! It has the nice variety of textures and taste that transition from the aromatic meat, to juicy pineapple and ending with the crisp crunch of fresh cucumbers. It’s traditionally cooked with pork, but I substituted ground turkey as I generally don’t eat red meat when eating at home (blame the BSE).

First, grab that mortar and pestle (or a shiny food processor) and pour in the chopped garlic, chopped cilantro, pepper and 1 tablespoons of olive oil. Grind to a nice paste- I find crushing vs swirling motions works best- and then set resulting cilantro paste aside.

Next, take a medium wok or skillet and coat with 1 tbs of olive oil. While the wok is heating, mix the cliantro paste with the meat evenly. When the wok is hot, put in the meat. Let the underside sizzle a little bit and brown a bit before stirring. Repeat process and break apart meat clumps until no longer pink. The cooking should be relatively short, around 3-5 minutes.

If cooking with ground turkey: Those familiar with ground turkey or ground chicken will know that using it as a substitute for ground pork or beef is always a challenge. The texture (and taste) don’t always travel over. In this Thai recipe, I had quite some difficulty breaking the turkey apart after hitting the wok as the meat simply clumped into large, play dough sized balls of meat. Mmmm… clumps of meat, how enticing! What I did was take the meat out while there was still a little pink and place it on a foil covered tray. I then covered the top with tinfoil and beat the chunks with a meat tenderizer (make sure you use the FLAT side). After a bit of pounding, take off the top foil and viola – nice little meat bits. Put back in wok and then cook until done.

Turn off the heat and set wok aside. Now take the pineapple, cut off the top and bottom and then take off the sides. Slice the rest into slices using a hexagonal pattern around the center core, then cube into pineapple chunks. Next, slice cucumber into slices.

Plating is very easy- arrange cucumbers around in circular or square pattern. Line the inside with a double stacked row of pineapple chunks, forming a little center to place the meat. Optionally, before placing the meat, you can put in some long carrot slices for garnish. After that, scoop the meat into the center of the dish into a mound that eventually pleasingly spills over the pineapples and cucumbers. It should look like a nice volcano of juicy meat. Garnish with fresh cilantro and also sliced red chili and serve!

Adjusting Review Formats for Coffee.net

Categories: news,restaurants — Tags: , — Posted by: Grant @ March 24, 2008 : 1:03 am

I never started out as a fan of blogs. To this day, I’m still a late adapter to the field. One of the reasons is that I’ve always wondered how many things can happen in one day that deserve blogging. That’s when I came up with the two posts per day rule. The rule is that if you make two blog posts a day, they had better be meaningful. Otherwise, you’re at risk of writing for the sake of your own ego.

This is my second post today, so it hopefully I abide by my own rules.

I had just finished reading an article on how to write well that made me think about the styles we use on Coffee.net. I’m in charge of coding and business, Steve does the graphics and legal paperwork while Bryan (now part-time) is our science and non-profit expert. You’ll notice I fail to mention writing as any of our core skills.

The fact is that chefseattle.com is a lightweight operation and employs no genuine writers. We’ve been winging it so far in the hopes that we don’t completely make fools out of ourselves. We do however have a part time editor, Jule, who is slowly catching up with our existing articles- let alone restaurant reviews. Restaurant reviews are the core of Coffee.net, so it’s important for us to develop a cohesive scheme that is both informative, entertaining and readable. I’m quite frank when I say that we’ve never quite developed a true game plan for the format of the reviews.

Some of our reviews are in the first person while others are in the third person. Some are summaries while others are detailed experiences. Some are humorous while others are just the facts. Having read more about internet habits, it’s apparent that readers prefer skimming short snippets as opposed to reading long-winded articles. In addition, readers want to be entertained, rather than buried under facts. The claim of short attention span on the internet holds true, for better or for worse.

I also realize that we were trying to go about things the wrong way. We are simply outclassed if we attempt to mimic the format of traditional print, with stylish stories from Providence Cicero of the PI or Frank Bruni of the New York Time. At the same time, we’re not fans of the bite sized reviews that leave so much to be desired. This leaves a format somewhere in the middle, that delivers selectable and digestible bits of information. Finding the right balance of how to deliver that information however, is the million dollar question.

There will certainly be another Coffee.net brainstorming session on how to format our reviews (again). Hopefully we will figure out something that everyone likes. In the meantime, we appreciate your patience and apologize while we try to bring cohesion to our dinner plates.

The Battle of the Bulge: Eating for a Living

Categories: food,news,restaurants — Tags: , , , , , , — Posted by: Grant @ March 23, 2008 : 10:09 pm

The New York Post posted an article today on what it means to be part of the Fat Pack. If you’re thinking that this is another common newsbite on the life of unhealthy, over-weight Americans who love McDonalds, you would be quite mistaken. At least about the McDonalds part.

The Fat Pack is actually a reference to the army of taste testing gluttons making up the food writing, culinary and review industry. It’s an exclusive club of sorts that meets at fine dining establishments, espouses secretive French lingo and gushes over the wonderful qualities of… fat.


The journalists, bloggers, chefs and others who make up the Fat Pack combine an epicure’s appreciation for skillful cooking with a glutton’s bottomless-pit approach. Cramming more than three meals into a day, once the last resort of a food critic on deadline, has become a way of life. If the meals center on meat, so much the better.

Even to those who have been in the game long enough to have seen more than a few cycles of food and diet fads, the Fat Pack culture is a shock.

“Most of us who are in this profession are here as an excuse to eat,” said Mimi Sheraton, the food writer and former New York Times restaurant critic who has chronicled her own battle with weight loss. Still, she said, “I’ve never seen such an outward, in-your-face celebration of eating fat.”

Research has shown that Americans generally take a dim view on their obese counterparts. The overweight are paid less, make negative first impressions and denied more services when compared to their thinner counterparts. Yet in the food industry, being fat is almost looked on as proof of one’s passion of eating. Portly bellies proudly attest to years in the gladiatorial arena of silver forks and spoons. Looking in the mirror each morning, I can attest to the fact that my own body is slowly working it’s way toward the uniquely dubious honor. Ironically, I mention this all the while chewing away at a coconut pastry passed my way (bit firm, too much coconut flakes on the outside, not enough taste infused into the actual bread).

I’ve said it multiple times and I’ll say it again: it’s actually not that fun eating for a living. Don’t get me wrong, I love food. This job would be a living hell if I didn’t like food. Not to mention, I wouldn’t ever hear the end of it from the throngs of would-be critics. After all, who wouldn’t be jealous at a life of gluttony when compared to a life of bland prix fixe: the hour commute appetizer, eight to five entree and casual Friday desert. Like any fantasy however, the illusion disappears when the wizard yanks away the curtain.

For a food critic, the magical revelations come in the form of jeans that no longer fit, uncomfortably tight shirts, a rise in cholesterol and increases in blood pressure. Then there’s the sudden aversion to any restaurant we have already sampled (it’s our version of repeating work). However, the true icing on the cake rears it’s mouthful of glory when we’re in our prime environment- a new, virgin restaurant. Prior to peeking at the menu, comes the fore knowledge that no less than three plates are sure to grace the table for consumption. Damn if those overstuffed, caloric soaked stomachs plead to the contrary. Just like you wouldn’t miss out on pizza in Chicago, we’re not about to pass up the tour du jour of antipasto, primi, secondi and dolce.

As if motivations for over-eating aren’t around each corner, there’s a never ending list of restaurant recommendations. We certainly appreciate suggestions, though it has become an impossibly long list. Imagine yourself a cook walking through Costco, only to have every customer shove a cart full of food for you to prepare. That’s about the gist of our interactions. The definition of awkward occurs when we do take someone up on a recommendation, only to find that the food is quite awful to our palettes. As politically correct as I can spin the tale of different tastes for different people, I’m still don’t find myself above lying to avoid a few embarrassing situations.

Yes, I know, I’m bad. But please, don’t stop sending recommendations. I swear, I totally love those sweet and sour pork globs at the karaoke bar down the street. Honest :)

Roundcube and Garbled Text

Categories: news — Tags: — Posted by: Grant @ March 22, 2008 : 7:55 pm

Another quick post regarding Roundcube, a relatively new webmail platform and garbled text issues.

I was attempting to put a Roundcube installation up yesterday and initially ran into a weird issue where the page was spilling out unreadable text that was garbled up. Obviously, something was being served up while there were no errors being spit out, so I immediately thought it might be some strange charset issue of some kind.

Looking at the settings, everything looked fine and it Roundcube was using UTF-8. No bizzareness there. Scratching my head, I started putting in debug points to see where things were failing. Turns out, it was a compression issue. Guess that should have been apparent sooner, but I am new to such things. Anyhow, I turned off compression in PHP and everything worked like a charm afterward. On the other hand, if you don’t want to turn off PHP compression, you can also comment out the z-lib compression lines in Roundcube’s index.php file for the same effect.

Lighttpd, mod_rewrite, url.rewrite and Error 404 Handlers

Categories: news — Tags: , , — Posted by: Grant @ March 19, 2008 : 4:19 pm

Alert: Total geek post.

Thought I would do a favor to anyone Googling for answers out there that might experience what I’ve run into the last day. Lighttpd is a relatively new webserver that I’ve picked over Apache, simply due to speed. Light does not handle .htaccess files however, which can post a major problem to developers familiar with the already arcane mod_rewrite, RewriteCond and RewriteRule voodoo that already goes on.

Many off-the-shell CMS packages like Joomla, WordPress and Drupal use URL friendly filenames to help with SEO. It turns URLS that look like:
http://www.coffee.net/index.php?id=52&page=2&content=article

Into the more readable:
http://www.coffee.net/article/51/2.html

This is most often achieved with the very simple .htaccess command of:

RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule (.*) index.php

As mentioned earlier, lighttpd does not support .htaccess files or this mod_rewrite syntax. It uses url.rewrite and url.redirect instead for various common redirection and rewriting tasks.

Searching on Google, I came across various posts on how to achieve the same effect, some using mod_magnet with a combination and others simply having their error 404 handler take care of things. I didn’t want to do either of these, because:
1) Having gone the error handler route, the server will DROP (yes, drop) any GET requests sent. I’ve tested this in Apache initially as a shortcut to save some cpu cycles thinking that Apache’s error handler would be faster than mod_write examining the disk. It worked great until my entire CMS system failed completely and left me debugging the hell out of the system until I realized the GET vars were just being dropped. (For the curious, light works in the same way)
2) Mod_magnet and lua, while I’m sure work fine, look like more overhead on top of mod_rewrite already. I hate overhead. Like, a lot.

So, Googling around more, I found some nice clues. First was lighttpd’s very own configuration docs that mention two servers variables: $PHYSICAL["existing-path"] and $PHYSICAL["path"], both of which seemed to be promising as variables to indicate whether a URL requested is a file that exists on the system. Paydirt. Then I realized it requires light 1.5.0 and that I don’t yet have that installed. Poop. (Yes, I could simply upgrade, but having just got things working, I don’t want to risk destroying anything until AFTER I get everything solidified. Looks like we’ll have to do things the hard way.

Here’s the eventual code that I came up with do perform the similar feature:

url.rewrite = (
"^/reserved/(.*)$" => "$0",
"^/static.html" => "$0",
"^/.+\.(html)$" => "/index.php",
"^/(.+)/$" => "/index.php"
)

It’s short, sweet and leaves many lovely CPU cycles untouched vs some big regex monsters. Obviously, this specific code is made for Coffee.net’s own CMS, but it’s not hard to tweak it to your own desire. The first and second line is to set aside any special directories or filenames that you don’t want rewrite to process. The rest looks for .html or directory requests- which should be what your webserver is receiving if you’re using friendly URLs.

Of course, I’d prefer -f and -d anyday given it’s probably faster, but this will do for now (at least until I upgrade lighty to 1.5 and see if I can get the $PHYSICAL var to do some magic).

The Guide on how (not) to Call Restaurants

Categories: restaurants,seattle — Tags: , — Posted by: Grant @ March 15, 2008 : 3:32 pm

English high school teachers always love to explain the difference between an assumption and a deduction. Let us clarify with a some examples:

Our assumption is that restaurants hate being called about sales.

This deduction is based on the amount of times we’ve been yelled at or hung up on.

The ironic part however, is that we’ve never once made a ‘sales’ call to any restaurant. Being the restaurant guide that we are, it’s important for us to have accurate data on each restaurant. We simply assume that restaurants would be happy to share their information with us. It’s beneficial to them and we wouldn’t dream of charging for publicly available information. Things aren’t so easy, however.

“Hello, my name is Grant and I work with chefseattle.com, a restaurant review and listing website. I was wondering if I could take a minute of your time to ask you or your manager some questions about your restaurant?”

This type of approach will guarantee one of the below:

  • “We’re not interested.”
  • “You’re part of what?”
  • “Call back later.” (when the restaurant is closed)
  • “You’ll have to talk with my manager.”
  • “Sorry we don’t have time.”
  • Hang up.

Ouch. This initial approach apparently seemed to generate feelings of hostility. This led us to believe that restaurants are often the target of solicitors, telemarketers or other unsavory characters trying to sell a product or service. If this was the case, we had to brush up that business and social IQ and try again.

“Hello, my name is Grant and I work with a restaurant listing service. I’d like to ask you a few questions about your restaurant that will only take a minute of your time?”

The changes? We dropped the part about identifying ourselves, as the identify of the organization calling seemed to have negative effect unless we were associated with a known brand like the Yellow Pages. In addition, we took out any mention of a review site, as that seemed to make people uneasy hearing the word. Last but not least, we took out mention of the word ‘manager’. That word alone seemed to immediately cause the person answering the phone to attempt to escalate the call or assume we were in sales.

The results:

  • “Call back later.”
  • “What kind of questions are you going to ask?”
  • “Which service are you with?”
  • “Uh, sure…”

Reactions are obviously far better than before, but we’ve still got a long way to go. Hesitation and uncertainty were some issues, as we could see that they were wondering about our motivations. It’s akin to a stranger on the street who says, “Can I ask you a question?” You’re thinking he might be asking for directions, so you don’t want to be rude, but he might also be asking if you believe in aliens. Time to refine and try again.

“Hi, my name is Grant and I’m gathering information on restaurants in the area. Can you start by telling me what hours are you open?”

In this even shorter version, we don’t even mention that we’re part of a restaurant listing service anymore. This seemed to be a hang-up for many restaurants in talking to us. Next, instead of passing the conversation with an open ended question that forces a decision, we instead pass a common, closed-ended question. This would lead to an easy segway into other questions, once we have initiated a conversation.

The results were beautiful. Restaurants answered without fail and we were able to hit them up with all our relevant questions after that short and simple opening. Only after our questions are answered do we get the questions of who we are or how we’re going to use the information.

We’re sure that any telemarketing specialist had a good laugh at our initial approach and can even improve our current method, but we’re pretty satisfied as-is. In the end, it was a neat experiment of sorts in the power of words.

Why Coffee.net Relies on Editors

Categories: news — Tags: , — Posted by: Grant @ March 8, 2008 : 10:08 am

From Newsweek: Is User-Generated Content Out?

“By any name, the current incarnation of the Internet is known for giving power to the people. Sites likee Youtube and Wikipedia collect the creations of unpaid amateurs while kicking pros to the curb—or at least deflating their stature to that of the ordinary Netizen. But now some of the same entrepreneurs that funded the user-generated revolution are paying professionals to edit and produce online content.”

There has always been discussion among during the brain-storming of our site on the role of editors and users. Taking a quick trip in history, the web originally evolved as a place where you could take in and read information on others. This involved an implicit level of trust, as you want to make sure the site you’re reading is factual. A number of review sites came around during this time of the web and relied heavily on editors to provide content for the site.

Quite a few years down the road to our current era, we’ve seen the opposite happen. With ‘Web 2.0′, the emergence of the participatory web, it’s now all about you. MySpace, YouTube, Wikipedia, Digg – they all ask you to make the content and they just provide the playground. It’s like a popular club, the more the merrier. Just like a club needs bouncers, these sites also need an abuse team to keep out the bad elements. However, when it comes out to simply trusting a peer for simply using the same site as you, why would you believe him or her? To illustrate, would you trust a stranger at a club offering you a free drink? Likely not.

Things brings us back to our topic, why chefseattle.com uses editors and food critics. We’re not all necessarily masters of the culinary arena, but we’re honest and well calibrated. (You’d have to be pretty dense not to tell the good from the bad after hundreds of reviews). More importantly, when we do implement user reviews, we’ll also be the ones reading each and every review that is left on our site until we know that person. We value quality and want to make sure you get quality reviews from other users on the site as well.

Obviously, we respect everyone’s personal preference in food, but if a restaurant gets a perfect score of 10 with a note of, “I love this place!” – then that is not very helpful. In cases like this, we’ll try to nudge the person to expand on the comments and give an explanation as to why. As an editor, we can address the issue without the premise of being offensive or fear of retaliation- something that as a peer reviewer, is a difficult task. In fact, our observations are that if a site is self regulated by it’s peers, it fosters cliques and elitism – something that eventually pushes people away.

So, just a short explanation for why we’re using reviewers in this day and age of Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 vs Jakob Neilson

Categories: news — Tags: — Posted by: Grant @ March 4, 2008 : 1:42 pm

Let’s get ready to ruuuuummmbbbllleee!!! (Warning: massive geek speak ahead)

In the left corner, we have the web designer favorite Web 2.0, weighing in at 200k, sporting a stylish CSS cape, Flash 9 boots and large JPG tattoos. Web 2.0 is known for delivering a mean AJAX left hook and has no mercy for dial-up users, older browsers and the handicapped.

In the right corner, we have usability favorite Jakob Neilson, weighting in at 30k, wearing nothing but a jock strap and fist wraps. Jakob is a grizzled, text-book HTML fighter with a clean style and can take on any browser.

Round 1: Fight!

Web 2.0 comes lurching out of it’s corner, but is noticeably slowed down by it’s huge Flash cape getting caught on the ropes. On the other side, Jakob rockets out of his corner with fiber-optic speeds and connects with a direct cross to Web 2.0′s jaw. Web 2.0 is used to taking quite the server throttling however and immediately counters with an mean 40k JavaScript library into Jakob’s face. The crowd gasps as the library bounces harmlessly off Jakob, who glees as if to remind Web 2.0 that he has JavasScript turned off. Jakob squares his shoulders again and lands another solid punch into Web 2.0, without any more effect than the last.

Round 2: Fight!

The crowd is stirring and looking for some action as the bell rings again and the fight is off. Jakob again looks to repeat his speed daemon charge when wait- what’s this? It looks like Web 2.0 has equipped itself with a DSL rocket pack and cable attachments! Web 2.0 makes a beeline straight for an unsuspecting Jakob Neilson and lands a King Hippo uppercut to Jakob’s groin! The crotch shot flips Jakob straight over the ropes and backward onto the cold HTML 1.0 floor, while Web 2.0 triumphantly flies around the arena tossing out animated ‘DIGG IT!’ GIFs to cheering fans. As Jakob gingerly recovers from his crash, Web 2.0 suddenly starts smoking in the middle of the ring! Oh no, it looks like Web 2.0′s web server has frantically committed sepuku under the maddening crush of Digg visitors! Bad mistake for Web 2.0!

Hold on, what’s that Jakob has? Is that… a TABLE? Yes, I believe it is! Jakob has sneaked in a TABLE into the ring and is now menacing down on Web 2.0, who is just now recovering thanks to a bleary eyed twenty-something patched in through a SSL Blackberry connection in Thailand. Jakob brings the TABLE smashing down on Web 2.0 like a Zangief piledriver on a defenseless Chun-Li. Stunned, Web 2.0 lets out a roar as it suddenly realizes that it conforms perfectly in all browsers and plays well with IE because it looks like a LEGO bot. The humiliation.

Final Round: Fight!

Now that the gloves are completely off (though Jakob has been half-naked to begin with), the crowd is wildly anticipating blood! Jakob pulls out an Aerosmith Revolution-X arcade machine from “My Documents\Current Year\” and volleys a stream of AOL 9.0 discs, disabling Web 2.0′s DSL rocket pack. Web returns with a flurry of XML bombs, which doesn’t phase Jakob, until he realizes they are hiding XSL style sheets which he hasn’t turned off! To Jakob’s horror, the XML bombs render into hundreds of MySpace friend requests from nubile females with God awful grammar. Web 2.0 drops a shoulder and charges Jakob, who is now hopelessly cursing some guy named Tom. Not an instant before being knocked senseless, Jakob shields himself with a 800×600 monitor, forcing Web 2.0 to screech to a halt and scroll horizontally.

Sensing his bid for time dangerously short, Jakob’s reaches into his jock strap and pulls out the Mother of All Show-Stoppers: Internet Explorer 6. Web 2.0, finally able to see Jakob again, recoils in sheer terror like a female on Xbox live for the first time. This is going to be painful.

In Matrix slow-motion fashion, Jakob counts to three and shoves this Holy Browser Grenade down the pipeline directly into Web 2.0′s meta matter. The crowd gasps as Web 2.0′s visage distorts, breaking well tuned DIVS into erratic bits and random chaos as if hit in the head with a Tron Disc. Slowly breaking off into floating parts, Web 2.0, with it’s last dying open window, jams a small object into Jakob’s foot. Jakob looks down and slowly realizes he’s been embedded with a video feed.

Jakob suddenly sees two girls.

They’re holding a cup.

Falling to his knees with clutched ears and squeezed eyes, Jakob’s visual and auditory senses are simultaneously overloaded with foreign stimuli incomprehensible to him as a web standard or as a human. In a moment of epiphany, Jakob suddenly realizes that across the web chasm, there is a hell far worse than embedded 8-bit MIDI. Choking on a lack of bandwidth, Jakob is forced to watch and listen to the popping video as he slowly blacks out and passes out.

Final Score: Draw!

Well, it looks like Jakob and Web 2.0 had a good fight, but neither came out on top this round. Perhaps again in the future they shall duel again and it may be finally determined, who is the real winner.

User Reviews, Coffee Store and What’s up with Seattle?

Categories: news,seattle — Tags: , , , — Posted by: Grant @ March 3, 2008 : 4:58 pm

“When can we sign up and post restaurants reviews?”

Answer: One month. (I think.)

Now I understand all those programmer jokes about how to estimate a project deadline. For those who aren’t so geeky, the jokes often go along the lines of:

Estimated project time + 3 months
Multiply by 2
Add [age of boss x 2] days
Add [number of programmers on projects] months
Add [number of meetings] weeks
Get final total.

Take total and multiply again by 2 and you have the genuine project completion time.

So really, user logins should be done in about 18 months, apparently.

Seriously though, hopefully one-month is the timespan for user logins. There’s a few issues going in, namely 1) I have zero experience coding sessions 2) I understand they are a security vector 3) I am coding for a scalable, multi-server environment and 4) I’m supposed to be on vacation. Or as Dante from the movie Clerks would say, “I’m not even supposed to be here today!”. For the PHP savvy, if you’re wondering why someone in this day and age would not have experience with sessions- let’s just say I knew of css, php and mysql about 7 months ago. It’s been a lot of firsts for many things this last year. I don’t think anything could be nearly as bad as the learning curve of IE and CSS, so I’m sure sessions will prove to be fairly standard.

While we’re on the topic of “things that need to be done”, the Coffee.net store is on that same to-do list. We’ve got lots of t-shirts, mugs and Black Gold DVDs that we want to put up for sale, but it’s just a bottleneck issue now. Paypal is the obvious choice, as it makes credit card processing temptingly easy by skipping the need for a merchant account, payment gateway and store. Not to mention, Paypal has the lion’s share of the electronic payment market, which would increase transactions simply due to familiarity. On the other hand, there are a few ethical issues that are of concern to us regarding Paypal. This leaves us with the possibly of Google Checkout or rolling our own solution (because we don’t have enough to do, apparently).

Speaking of not enough to do, the astute among you might realize that our Seattle directory is no longer pointing to our restaurant reviews. We’ve moved it to the (drum roll…) restaurants directory instead. It made more sense, though we had some search engine reasons for making it Seattle to begin with. Now in the Seattle directory, we’ve put in place a variety of articles in there as filler for now (at least we’re honest?). The long term idea however, is to make it a short and sweet Top Ten lists of things, places, restaurants, people to (do / see / eat/ meet) in Seattle. Some visitors like deeper topics like Bryan’s article on the homeless, while others might like a Top Ten List of Weird Ads in the Seattle Weekly. We here are Coffee.net are shameless is selling ourselves to the lowest common denominator (if it’s for a good cause).

Home | About Us | Seattle Restaurants | Food Articles | Blog | Friends | Charity | Advertising | Contact Us
Blogging platform by WordPress
28 queries. 0.174 seconds.