I read a list of America's top 10 chain restaurants in the Chicago Tribune and asked myself what was the real point of the ranking?
The article gave an overview of what it had determined were the 10 of the biggest chains but the reviewer then jumped to the conclusion that only 2 maybe 3 were worth eating at? The stated purpose for the ranking was intended to identify the 10 biggest chains, and then which was best, but big doesn't always mean good. If the reviewer must have used reported sales data to rank for size but no criteria for what determined “good would be” was included.
The same article ranked the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain as #1 for being good but it was recently ranked #35 in size so apparently sales ranking isn’t consistent. (How do you compare a good Cracker Barrel meal to a good McDonalds meal by the way?)
Another article ranked McDonalds as the best restaurant chain? The definition of “best” was not explained but Chicago Tribune didn’t even discuss why they thought Cracker Barrel was the best “good” restaurant?
Adding to the confusion another article showed that one of Cracker Barrel's most popular and raved-about dishes is a “simple, timeless classic”: the Macaroni n' Cheese. It would seem that this dish would have to had some role in the Chicago articles conclusions, and maybe it did, but really what is best when it comes to Macaroni n’ Cheese dishes? No survey would capture all the concepts for this dish for a ranking.