Although at the end of the day I like to make my own assessments, I do find it interesting to compare my thoughts with what the Good Food Guide says about restaurants.
A couple of other local long-term inclusions have been dropped from this edition; perhaps regrettable for them, but on reflection probably under-standable. Expectations change, and sometimes it's not enough simply to keep doing things the same way. I think this applies to at least one (perhaps both) of the local places that have dropped out. My impression is that they're still doing things in much the same way as they have in the past. Perhaps this appeals to an established clientele, but it's not necessarily the way to keep your place in a guide that purports to be "up there" with the trends in the industry.
One thing about the Guide that I sometimes struggle with is the mapping. Of course, many of the restaurants reviewed are in concentrated pockets and others are widely dispersed, so a "one size fits all" mapping layout just wouldn't work. But the maps are a bit of a "mish-mash". It seems to me that they could be a little clearer.