All reviews written in 2010 on Lunch.com are eligible to win the Lunch Award. The "best" reviews are rated highly by readers in terms of Thoughfulness, Helpfulness, etc.
What are the Lunch Awards? First EVER award honoring online reviews! Recognizing excellence in reviews by real people! Brand spanking new! Sharing useful knowledge and opinions online is not only helpful, but actually has … see full wiki
Personally, as an egalitarian, I believe that we must see each other as equals and therefore I am opposed to the concept of competition. While I have no qualms with awards being handed out for people's contributions and I certainly encourage everyone to speak up and congratulate one another on their successes, I feel that voting on the best "this or that" when it comes to creative output will only taint the creative process and encourage a hierarchic mentality. If Lunch.com is true in its desire to bring people together and find common ground as a social networking/reviewing site, then one must assume that the site's main goal is to unify people and provide web users with informative and entertaining write-ups. The problem is that the very idea of awarding people based upon a populist voting system doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the writing artistically or technically and will likely lead to resentments. It must also be taken into account that members with the highest number of friends are set up to receive more votes. So far as I can see, the best way to initiate an awards program would be to rely on the opinions of outsiders and experts in various fields to nominate the reviews they find most helpful. By having the very people who create the content being awarded the ones who nominate said content seems like a conflict of interest and a somewhat narcissistic proposition. Having said that, I still love this site for it's easy-to-use platform, for its members and staff, and for most of its content. But I think, in all honesty and with no offense meant, that this awards idea is misguided.