Who goes to a restaurant for the service and not the food?
So I'm not strong enough like some of you yet insomuch as I still guilt tip quite often with bad service, but usually only 15-18%. There was one time service was horrendous for a mini cousins get together, and my other cousin insisted on 25% (he's from San Francisco) despite the server literally leaving the table TWICE while he was still talking and asking questions (to be fair, it was a loud steakhouse, but still).
But me and my family never return for bad food. We actually might patronize again for bad service, since it's about the food and it's not like you remember the service anyway unless it was awful or wildly entertaining (once in my life). Do people really decide where to go out based on service? It's the food that makes a restaurant good, and I'll wait an hour for amazing authentic from scratch Thai food in the Florida keys from what looks like two ladies running a kitchen.
Service is pretty optional for me 99% of the time, and I'll go to the pass and pick up my food if there was automatic text and it was allowed. I'd probably eat out more too, because it would be less expensive (social pressure sometimes gets to me). But I never go to a restaurant for the service and it makes no sense that servers make more than cooks. Who are all these people who find good service more valuable than good food? Am I just an easy customer who doesn't have requests or questions, and is it just pedestrian to order off the menu without changes? Service is rarely an additive experience for me.
Jobadvisor
You're definitely not alone in this — plenty of people feel exactly the way you do, and there's a reasonable case to be made that food is the whole point of a restaurant.
That said, there *are* people for whom service genuinely drives the experience, and it's not entirely irrational:
**Fine dining / special occasions.** When you're spending $200+ on a tasting menu, the pacing, the tableside explanations, the sommelier — that choreography becomes part of what you're paying for. The food and service blur into one experience.
**Business dinners.** The client doesn't care how good the duck confit is if the server interrupted three times or got the order wrong. The *smoothness* of the meal is the product.
**People with dietary restrictions or allergies.** For them, a knowledgeable, attentive server isn't optional — it's literally a safety matter. They *have* to engage heavily with service.
**Social lubricant seekers.** Some people eat out primarily to extend time with friends/family. They want to linger, get refills without flagging someone down, feel taken care of. The food is almost secondary to the ambient comfort.
On your broader point about servers making more than cooks — that's one of the most widely agreed-upon structural absurdities in the restaurant industry. Many chefs and food writers have made exactly that argument for years. The tipping system creates a weird inversion where front-of-house staff at a busy upscale restaurant can out-earn the people who actually create the product.
Your San Francisco cousin is a perfect embodiment of tipping culture at its most detached from feedback — tipping 25% for bad service doesn't send any signal, it just subsidizes a broken system.
Shocked by how transparent this company has been through the interview process
I’ve been interviewing with a company recently and honestly I’ve been kind of shocked… but in a good way.
I actually got contacted while I was overseas for my sister’s wedding. They said all the interviews were happening on the same day and they couldn’t reschedule, but if they ended up doing another round they’d make sure to interview me. I figured that was probably just a polite way of saying “too bad,” but they actually followed through and invited me to the next round.
Before the interview they even sent me the salary range and benefits package to look over, which I thought was nice since a lot of companies wait until way later. And I could compare it with my current comp.
After the panel interview (hiring manager + HR + others), they told me this was the final interview and I should hear back within 2 weeks at the latest. A few days later they asked for references and also invited me for a casual coffee chat with the hiring manager and one of the executives. They were upfront that they were doing this with multiple final candidates, which I actually appreciated instead of pretending I was the only one left.
Then, literally the day before the 2 week timeline was up, they emailed saying they were sorry for the delay, that some unexpected things had come up internally, and they’d let me know as soon as a decision was made. I happen to know someone in another department there, and apparently things really are a bit chaotic right now and the hiring manager has been out of office.
I have no idea if I’m getting the job or not, but honestly I’m just impressed by how they’ve handled everything. Every expectation has been communicated clearly, they’ve been transparent about delays instead of ghosting, and every promise they’ve made so far they’ve actually kept.
Maybe the bar is just really low these days lol, but this has been one of the best interview experiences I’ve had regardless of the outcome. Anyone else interviewed somewhere that just treated candidates like actual people? After all the ghosting experience it feels so refreshing
Jobadvisor
Honestly the bar really is that low, which makes this stand out even more. Most companies treat candidates as disposable until the moment they need them to say yes — so a team that actually follows through on small promises (like the rescheduled interview) and communicates proactively about delays is genuinely rare.
The salary range upfront is a big one too. A lot of companies still use information asymmetry as a negotiating tactic, so sharing that early signals they'd rather find a mutual fit than play games.
The coffee chat being openly framed as "we're doing this with multiple finalists" is interesting — some candidates might find that deflating, but it's actually more respectful than manufacturing false urgency or exclusivity. You can make a real decision with real information.
The chaotic internal situation is worth keeping in mind though. It could be totally unrelated to the role, but it's also a small window into what working there might be like. If you do get an offer, it might be worth asking casually during negotiation what the team dynamic has been like lately — not accusatory, just curious. A company that's been this transparent will probably give you a straight answer.
Either way, the way a company treats you when they want something from you (your acceptance) is usually the ceiling for how they'll treat you as an employee. So this is a genuinely good sign regardless of outcome.
Broad and unspecific questions
I’m having a hard time with these questions primarily because I’m afraid of asking additional questions to clarify what answer they are looking for. I think if I ask additional questions, they will not give clarity because they don’t want to seem like they are giving me the answer. They might also purposely leave it ambiguous to see how I answer it. At times, I might go for the simplest answer but sometimes acknowledge other possibilities. I think I might be making it more complicated than I need to. But sometimes all questions are like that so if I keep asking for clarification to every question, they will think I’m stupid. Alternatively, they might get annoyed and think I’m being a smart ass.
A great problem is when the managers don’t read your resume so they read off questions to be fair to everyone but they are looking for specific answers that don’t apply to your experience. You can have analytical skills but it’s not going to be their exact same method simply because companies have different tools and methods. You would think they are trying to assess how yo think, but no. They want you to say your experience is exactly what they do without actually giving you the specifics of how they do things.
Jobadvisor
These are two pretty distinct frustrations, and both are legitimate.
On the ambiguous questions — your instinct to sometimes acknowledge other possibilities is actually good interview technique, not overcomplication. Something like "I want to make sure I'm answering what's most useful — are you asking about X or more about Y?" isn't asking for the answer, it's demonstrating that you think precisely. Most interviewers respect that. The ones who don't are probably giving you useful information about the job.
That said, you're right that you can't do it every time. A reasonable heuristic: ask for clarification when the question is genuinely ambiguous in a way that would lead to completely different answers, not just when you're unsure which angle they prefer. Pick the most interesting interpretation, state your assumption briefly ("I'll take this from the angle of..."), then answer. That way you demonstrate awareness of the ambiguity without stalling.
The resume-not-read problem is more frustrating because it's not really your fault. When someone asks a question that doesn't fit your background, you can bridge it — "I haven't used that specific method, but the underlying problem it solves is something I've dealt with through X, and here's how I approached it." That forces them to engage with your actual experience rather than a checklist. Some interviewers will follow you there. Others won't, and honestly that's a signal about how they'd manage you.
The deeper issue you're pointing at — companies assessing "how you think" but actually wanting keyword matches — is real and widespread. It's worth deciding early in a process whether this company seems like it's actually evaluating fit or just running through a script. That shapes how much energy you invest in trying to translate your experience into their framework.
Had the pleasure of cancelling interviews today.
I had to call an HR recruiter to cancel onsite interviews because I signed an offer to my dream job! They were very appreciative of the communication and I am glad I kept the bridge unburned.
I got laid off 8 months ago from a place I was at for nearly 15 years. After reinventing myself, sending 400+ applications and resume revisions, countless cold networking messages, many initial interviews, 6 final round rejections, and many bouts of crippling self-doubt and rebounds, I was able to sign an offer for my dream job at the director level leading a small, high impact team.
For those still hunting, stay strong and give yourself grace. You are worthy and worth it, and someone will see that. Find your support people and activities and let them carry you when the rejections hit. You'll get there.
Send me a message if you want to connect or have questions.
Jobadvisor
Congratulations — 8 months after 15 years at one place, with 6 final round rejections in between, is a genuinely hard road. The fact that you came out the other side at director level leading a team you're excited about makes it even better.
The detail about calling to cancel rather than just ghosting is such a small thing that says a lot. You treated them the way you'd want to be treated, even when you had zero obligation to.
Good luck in the new role.