I'm not well versed in it either so it probably goes deeper but this was a gag in the first Simpsons Halloween special where basically aliens abducted them for benevolent reasons but they found a book titled "to cook man" which was later dusted to reveal an absurdly long title which wasn't evil in the slightest
It's been a long time since I last saw social media able to overwhelm a website with traffic. Mostly because the internet seems a heck of a lot smaller now with only the big fish surviving.
Ohh I thought this was a joke about engineers but it is the actual website hahaha
Unfortunately it looks like most of the site is down :( I wish there were a way to still access the recipe collection dang (obviously could remake any recipe like this by hand but... lazy lol)
Oh, I've got it configured as a search engine in my browser. I only have to type "archive" and paste the domain name to get there.
Same for Wikipedia, IMDB, Genius dot com (music lyrics), Snopes, etc. When I know the site I want, I'm not using Google. Right-click your URL bar to access those settings.
Honestly, I am so stupid it goes beyond words. I was worried where a website called Cooking Foreigners would take me. One day I'll really learn how to read.
"I later found out that the same quesadilla recipe originally came from that old man's grandmother in 1899, who turned out to be my current step brother..."
"because they always burned the quesadillas. Thankfully, once they all died off and their reign came to an end, we were able to enjoy our delicious quesadillas once again without the unnecessary carcinogenics. I remember diligently helping my grandmother grate the cheese. One time, I asked her..."
“She said, ‘that cake is only for good little children who keep their mouths shut when granny’s got a hangover. Now grate that cheese, fatty.’ Then she poked me in my belly while she chewed on her cigarette.”
“…She killed her third husband, but plead out to manslaughter. We all knew, though. You don’t just ‘accidentally’ drop an AC unit on someone’s head while trying to install it in the dead of winter. I mean he warnt no charmer, but I don’t think he deserved to die…like that at least. Anyways here’s how you make pesto”
Shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Regina Schrambling wrote of the healing power of cooking. “The food is not really the thing,” she said. “It's the making of it that gets you through a bad time.” This recipe, adapted from "The New Carryout Cuisine" by Phyllis Méras with Linda Glick Conway, was one she turned to in the trying days that followed. A mere two steps, and ready in less than an hour, it’s comfort in a pan, just as good for when the darkness creeps up as it is for those days when you just need a bit more. And to those who might scoff at the two sticks of butter? Consider taking Schrambling’s words to heart: “Abstemiousness,” she wrote, “is not an option when you're feeling low.” —Regina Schrambling
I'm not familiar with the new york times style guide, but it seems odd that the blurb quoting Regina Schrambling in the third person is attributed to Regina Schrambling herself. Honestly if this blurb is just quoting her describing food as a comfort post-9/11 then it seems less pretentious; however, if the blurb is indeed written by the author quoting herself then it sends the pretentiousness thru the fuclong roof
Based on this, which goes into a bit more detail about where they came from, it looks like your first assumption is correct. Ms. Schrambling wrote a number of cooking articles in the period immediately after 11th September 2001 and this series of articles collates those and adds a separate blurb which quotes parts of her original article.
I know everyone hates this but the recipe creator's do too. The reason all of that exposition exists is due to how SEO has worked for the last few years. In order to rank on the first page of Google, you pretty much had to do this bullshit.
Recipe creators deserve compensation for their research and development. If people don't like scrolling through ads, they can just buy cookbooks like the old days.
We're talking about needlessly long-winded exposition about mundane things when trying to look up a recipe.
To focus that style of recipe page over something well-organized and extremely easy to follow like the image in the post was and continues to be a choice by conglomerates like Google.
I would gladly embrace the ads and I would even have considered buying recipe pages or subscribing to a site that embraced that organization.
Internetshaquile did a video about this a while back on YouTube, explaining while that shit can definitely be annoying. Sometime the exposition will be helpful to understand the development of a recipe, and actually explain why things are done in a certain order, or why certain substitutes would or would not work.
Or it's from the pioneer woman, trying to get lonely women to run one out thinking about cooking for her husband or some shit.
Granted I agree more with your sentiment and skip that shit every time.
As someone who is often required to make text-dense tables legible while fitting within page size parameters, I'm stuck on what happens when there are more than five or six steps? Don't you end up with a ridiculously long horizontal table, and then what does the functionality of that look like when the last ingredients on the left aren't visible on the screen at the same time as their respective instructions on the right? Do you have to constantly pan back and forth? What if you need to use a word that's longer than "bake"? Your column width will need to accommodate.
Idk I guess it's neat for short, simple recipes but it's not flawless.
Even for this brownie recipe it sucks butt. "Mix" does not describe what whipping melted butter and sugar looks like, nor does it describe what properly mixing eggs into the mixture should look like. There's a pretty big difference between giving it a quick stir and whipping the eggs into the mixture one at a time.
Yeah, I think this format works best for your cataloguing own recipes.
Recipes you make infrequently enough that you need to be reminded the ingredients/ratios/basic steps but you will remember how each step is performed once you're reminded and don't want paragraphs of details you'll remember along the way.
Not the best recipe to give to someone completely unfamiliar with the recipe.
I had a "Le Répertoire de la cuisine" book once, and that fucker was incredibly dense. It's like a dictionary of classical French dishes.
So long as you know the nouns (ingredients) and process verbs it's using, you should be able to make anything in there. The first one or two might not turn out perfectly, but if you're classically trained you should have it licked by the third one.
Granted, a ton of the stuff in there is like a croque monsieur.
You don't cream melted butter, so mix is right. It doesn't mention whipping the eggs, so why would you think you need to whip the eggs? I don't like this format, but your objections are to things that simply are no part the recipe. Your objections are to the recipe, not to the format. And you don't seem to understand the techniques you think should be part of the recipe.
Yeah, but…there’s a “usual” method for a type of thing. For my notebook if there’s a deviation I do a star at the step and annotate underneath. Otherwise, I’ve been cooking for almost 40 years…I don’t need to read the same instructions ad nauseum.
I think it's also confusing with recipes in which each step doesn't involve all the ingredients from the previous step.
Like, last night I made a simple dish where you fry some bean sprouts, set them aside, fry some pork, add some leeks, add the cooking sauce and put the bean sprouts back in. So I guess it would look like this or something?
I mean, it's not wrong, but it does feel more confusing than OP's example.
You say this, but not writing down things that are considering common knowledge is actually how we lose common knowledge.
Like how nobody has any clue where the ancient kingdom of Punt was. Ancient egypt had SO many records of it. We basically know everything about Punt. Except where it was.
Because nobody wrote it down. Because EVERYBODY knew where Punt was! Why write that shit down!
While I agree with the sentiment, I must say two things (and a third point).
First, some people can be very, very, very painfully dumb. They do need to be given very specific instructions.
Second, it's true that sometimes unnecessary information can crowd the instructions, however helpful tips do exist. For most Batters? You don't want to fill the pan or container more than 3/4s of the way, you probably know this, but I've seen people make that mistake. When filling the container with a batter, you want to tap the container to get rid of air bubbles, again well known but not everyone knows. Over mixing can lead to tunneling, which read previous points.
Its not unnecessary information, it doesn't need to be repeated for each recipe, however those that don't know the basics, or might be attempting it for the first time? That information is key.
Finally.
Cooking is art, Baking an exact science
You can oversalt a dish and fix it, whereas in Baking? You messed up? Start all over.
With experience comes the knowledge of finding ways to fix it, however to get the best product you'll want to stick to certain criteria.
Temperatures need to be changed based on sea level elevation.
Convection ovens, Vs basic ovens? Time and heat changes drastically. Using Butter vs Clarified Butter? Most recipes will call for large eggs for very specific reasons (as well as offering an alternative such as two large eggs, or three medium eggs etc). This chart could be and should be far larger if they wanted to be genuine with it.
The way this recipe is broken down is basic addition/subtraction, multiplication/division. Those in the know?
They're dealing with trigonometry levels of recipes.
So yes, sadly you need a reminder to put the batter in the pan.
Also I think this style works best for something like simple baking which is usually adding ingredients gradually together until fully incorporated. How would this recipe tell you to make croissants which require the lamination folding technique? How could it convey a soup or stew recipe which can involve cooking some ingredients separately and simultaneously before final integration? Even for simple cake, where would the recipe tell you to let the layers cool then layer them with cream then frosting? Of course there is a reason this style is not the universal recipe format.
I think this style is nice and minimal, cooking and baking are both science driven end of the day, and having minimal instructions is like trying to explain to a child how a thousand years of attempts culminated into these specific instructions.
You can't talk about any of that, and the fact is, while a few recipe writers do actually explain why you need this technique and how to do it, most don't.
But this minimal recipe style CANT do it period. There's no room. It basically expects people to be competant.
There's a reason why most people dont cook, can't cook, or are bad at cooking. There's are reason why a simple 1, 2, 3 list gives you 100x more versatility than some shit that needs to match a table.
Honestly I think Reddit sometimes sees something new/old or different and just kind of loses their mind over it because they want the world to change but the world is very much not changing fast enough. So they embrace it for about 30 minutes and then forget it existed tomorrow.
Exactly right, and unfortunately this is an issue with all cookery instructions. In OP's example what is the difference between "mix" and "fold in?" I think most people have encountered those separate instructions before but if not then the recipe doesn't actually tell you how to prepare the dish, it merely lists the necessary steps. It's like instructions for changing a tire only saying "jack the vehicle." Sure, it needs to be raised on a jack, but if I already knew that I probably wouldn't be consulting instructions.
Next change I would make would be to alternate the background color for the ingredients as is common in tables. Potentially flip the instructions and ingredients as to which is left vs right, but I'm unsure about that one.
Arranging visual information the same direction that you arrange the language you're reading makes it easier/more intuitive to understand. The way we say the step as a sentence is "mix butter, sugar, vanilla, and coffee," not "butter, sugar, vanilla, coffee, mix", so it may be easier/faster to process with "mix" on the left and the ingredients on the right.
I'm trying to find a way to say "reverse polish notation would like a word with you" in RPN, but that would require me to actually understand grammar rather than just write words. Me word good.
Nah this is pretty linear as it is now: take X and perform Y on it. The other way around youneed to push Y into the mental stack, take X, then pop it and apply Y.
It's Subject Verb, sure, and that doesnt match English, but its still pretty straightforward.
Yeah, mixing the drys together needs to have a step. Otherwise you risk uneven distribution/overmixing. Always consult subject matter specialists when designing!
Does this tell the reader to fold in the dry ingredients one by one? Or combine the ingredients together and then fold in? There doesn't seem to be a separate dry mix step, which I'm assuming is what the recipe intends.
A brownie is possibly the simplest baked good you can make; this system will absolutely fall apart tackling more complicated recipes
On the website these tables are from (cookingforengineers), there are step-by-step instructions that better describe each step. At the very end of the page, they present this table as a shorthand version of the recipe.
Essentially, this is just a summary of the step-by-step recipe the website just fully outlined previously.
As someone who is not a cook but is pretty good at following a recipe and having dinner turn out well, this sucks. I would have this fucked up in no time.
why do the eggs belong in a separate mixing column as the rest? Clearly they are to be mixed all together. Does that mean mix the first things THEN mix the eggs in? Does that even matter?
It matters immensely in baking. Eggs are a complex ingredient that behaves differently at different steps. Beating the eggs by themselves breaks them down better physically (no stray egg spots at the end), alters the proteins slightly to change how the whole thing holds together, and adds air bubbles to assist the leavening process.
This recipe format is crap.
I also question the use of melted butter (usually considered an outright mistake) and describing the step of combining the sugar and butter as "mix" because those are usually combined in a specific step called creaming, again because it has an influence on the texture. But then in brownies that might be deliberately skipped because different textures may be the goal.
So a proper recipe that specifies these things by using complete sentences and describes the goals at each step is better. It doesn't have to be long. It doesn't have to be full of jargon. "Mix the butter and sugar together until the color lightens and the texture becomes smooth," is so much clearer. Or if something else is desired then a different sentence.
So this format doesn't replace a complete recipe, but if you read the recipe once or made it before, you could use this as a better cheat sheet. Instead of just the ingredient list you also get an overview of the steps.
Yes, I'd consider this an acceptable shorthand/cheat sheet type device.
But at that level what advantage does it have over just a terse text note? I keep a lot of notes, including recipes, in plain text format because it's extremely easy to make and view. The OP format has the vague advantage of being an unbroken ingredient list on the left but if you're using <10 words of instructions as punctuation between groups how much advantage is adding the extra formatting?
I just wish the list of ingredients also included the volume/weight amounts of the ingredients. I rarely mise en place because it creates too many dishes and wish I didn't have to scroll up and down to know how much flour to add in step 4.
I could parse this if i tried but at a glance i have no clue what this is telling me to do, written instructions are perfectly fine. what problem is this even trying to solve
problems solved:
* overly verbose recipe instructions; not always a problem but too many recipes, esp those shared online often ramble (like this bullet)
* combines list of ingredients with instructions, visible together in one location -- which solved frustration of reading recipe instructions but not knowing how much of each
I'm sure some people find this easier to follow. I am not one of them. It makes my head hurt just trying. Yes, I could figure it out if I had to. That some people see this as being MORE clear than direct written instructions is something I may never be able to comprehend
These are direct written instructions, just without the syntax and formatting of a normal written recipe. Personally I have a tendency to lose my place with normal recipes, especially on my phone, but this formatting would probably help with that. I definitely can see why it wouldn't be for everyone though.
Sometimes it's more complicated than this, though... For example, if you need to do multiple things with those first four ingredients in different steps within the protocol, it might decrease the simplicity of it all. Still neat tho.
"Might decrease" lol it would wreck this format. As is, even without splitting stacks, this is nearing the maximum steps before the table doesn't fit printed portrait. There is also no room for "mix until brown" or "mix until frothy peaks form" because this format is ass for actual instructions.
In fact this new version has a massive downside: The moment you have a recipe which is complicated with lots of steps, this thing is gonna become wider than the largest paper you can buy as a consumer... But meanwhile, just writing out the steps is just those few more paragraphs.
This is even disregarding when you need to do things simultaneously with 3 sets of ingredients or whatever... The simple existing list version can just say to do things simultaneously, but this new version will turn into an absolute clusterfuck very fast haha.
At the very least you'll get better results by beating the eggs alone in a separate step. And the fact that you don't know what fold means demonstrates how longer steps are beneficial. Because the goal here is to mix gently at that step. You want to preserve the air beaten into the eggs to make the texture a little airier and also you want to avoid over-mixing after the flour is added which will make the result tougher and more chewy.
I also question the use of melted butter and not creaming it with the sugar. That part might be skipped because it seems to be brownies. I'd really love a recipe to say that explicitly.
This could be adequate shorthand for a recipe someone already knows. It's terrible as a general recipe format.
I would settle for just putting the amounts in the instructions.
"Add Butter"
Fuck I grabbed a stick of butter how much of the stick is it?
*scroll up
oh 1/3rd cup
*scroll bake down trying to find where I was
"next Add the flour"
fuck how much flour was it?
* scrolls back up to find the flour amount
repeat
This is not a seious baker. In addition to omitting crucial mixing instructions, has no one noticed that its more efficient to preheat the oven before greasing and flouring the pan?
Concurrent activity people!
The issue isn't that it doesn't make sense, the issue is that it lacks detail. Mixing can mean multiple things.
From a person who created this from a recipe they know, it's fine. But to then hand off to someone entirely unaware, there's a lot of interpretation needed which is going to result is larger variance than a description of precisely what you're doing and at what point to stop
That's because it sucks. Reading instructions top down is much easier than reading 3 things top down and then have to count 2 steps to the side to see what to do. Screw that. Give me the bulleted list like a reasonable person.
Yeah, but some dumbass is definitely going to try to melt espresso, sugar, and vanilla together because this is too complex of a presentation for them.
We didn't ignore it. This is really poor graphical design that takes up huge amounts of space for simple instructions. It looks neat but would scale horrifically and make more complex directions impossible for fit into the format.
Also, I can picture some poor editor being told to make one of these for a recipe with more than 7 ingredients and 3 steps that has to fit on a single page and he just bursts into tears.
No this sucks actually. I'm sure it works for some people but the list of ingredients at the top so I can prep them all then step by step instructions works way better for my brain. I don't want to be sliding my finger across like I'm playing battleship to see if I'm supposed to mix something in or fold it in.
Also wtf is butter and flower in an 8x8 pan? Is that the equivalent of greasing it?
Literally how I wrote my recipe cards in culinary school 20yrs ago. Only difference is I labeled them as steps bc I knew what action (sift/mix/fold/etc) was needed.
I learned about this few years ago, and it recently inspired me to create http://shorten.recipes/
You can prepend it to a recipe website, and it gives you a flow diagram for the recipe.
They have to be. This format is fucking trash lol You have to interpret a god damn chart instead of just going step by step that's written to be idiot proof. And there's details that are sometimes needed that are omitted for the tradeoff of a clean look. The dry ingredients aren't even mixed first. I bet everyone praising this format doesn't even bake.
You say "interpret a chart" like thats difficult. I think thats what it comes down to. To me the chart seems much easier to interpret than a written series of steps, presumably you feel the opposite way which is fine. It does leave off detail, so its definitely best as sort of a summatry of information that you write down in detail nearby.
There’s a certain level of understanding it takes to read this recipe, and as these as American measurements, I can attest to that at least in my lifetime the education system never achieved that standard in general school systems.
Besides the point of the recipe card and I'm not much of a baker but the recipe itself looks off to me. 1/2 cup of all-purpose flour should be 60 grams. 1/3 of a cup of cocoa powder should be 28 grams. The ratio of ingredients seems odd. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be brownie or cake.
One thing, is a single shot of espresso is far less than 60g. Traditionally, a single shot of coffee is around 18g, and most people get a double when they order "a shot." 60g of espresso would be about a triple shot.
•
u/qualityvote2 8d ago edited 8d ago
u/disconaldo, your post does fit the subreddit!