My 2 cents: first off, the Michelin Guide is basically built with the Western traveler in mind. So yeah, a restaurant usually needs a certain level of hype or “buzz” just to get on their radar. If you look at tourism stats across these countries, it kind of makes sense why some places get way more attention than others.

Second, there’s definitely some bias in how inspectors operate. A city like San Francisco might get visited every month, while parts of Italy might only see an inspector once every 4–5 years. On top of that, they’re clearly chasing a very specific fine dining experience, often the kind where meals easily go over 200€. It’s less about tradition and more about luxury, technique, premium ingredients, and presentation.

Consistency also matters a LOT. If a restaurant keeps changing its kitchen team every few months, you can pretty much forget about a star. Michelin is big on stability and repeatable quality.

Third, Michelin-starred places don’t always reflect traditional or local cuisine. Sometimes it feels like the more “authentic” or regional food gets overlooked in favor of upscale interpretations.

And finally, people forget that local tourism boards have sometimes played a role in bringing the Michelin Guide into certain regions in the first place, which probably doesn’t help with keeping things completely unbiased imo.