How TasteAtlas Compiles Its Rankings And Why It Often Stirs Controversies

In the past few years, TasteAtlas has become one of the internet's most influential and controversial food guides. Its "Best Cuisines," "Best Dishes," "Most Legendary Restaurants", and other lists routinely dominate social media feeds, trigger national pride conversations, but often also spark arguments among food enthusiasts around the globe. India, too, has felt the impact: every time biryani, vada pav or kulcha appears on a global list, discussions erupt about whether the world finally understands Indian food or is still missing the point. But amid the excitement lies a complicated question: how authoritative are these rankings?

TasteAtlas presents itself as a crowdsourced map of culinary knowledge, claiming to gather local wisdom from around the globe. Yet the lack of clear transparency in how its scores are produced leaves many wondering whether internet visibility has been mistaken for expertise. Below, we explain what the platform is, how it works, and why debates over its legitimacy continue.

What Exactly Is TasteAtlas?

TasteAtlas was founded in 2018 by Croatian entrepreneur Matija Babic with the ambition of creating a global "encyclopedia of traditional dishes." It operates as a hybrid between a user-driven food discovery platform and an editorially curated database. Each dish, ingredient, or restaurant on the site has a dedicated page, often with short descriptions, regional histories, and photographs. Over time, the platform has expanded from being a visual atlas of local foods to producing high-profile global rankings that compare entire national cuisines. It's an evolution that has dramatically increased its visibility.

TasteAtlas's founder has repeatedly positioned the platform as a middle ground between crowd-driven sites like Tripadvisor and elite, industry-led guides such as Michelin. In interviews and public statements, he has argued that TripAdvisor tends to prioritise tourist-heavy establishments and can be skewed by general user behaviour rather than culinary expertise, while Michelin focuses on fine dining and excludes the everyday food traditions that define a region's identity. TasteAtlas, he says, aims to fill this gap by documenting traditional dishes, local culinary heritage, and small food businesses that may not meet Michelin's criteria or attract the volume of reviews TripAdvisor depends on. His stated goal is to create a guide rooted in cultural authenticity rather than commercial popularity or fine-dining trends. "TasteAtlas is a platform for normal food and down-to-earth people. No haute cuisine, no modern twists, no fuss," explains Matija Babic.

Also Read: Mumbai Named 5th Best Food City In The World - See Which Other Indian Cities Were Ranked

How TasteAtlas Claims Its Rankings Are Compiled

TasteAtlas states publicly that ratings come from users who score dishes and restaurants on the platform. Large volumes of votes are filtered using AI to remove suspected spam or biased submissions. Annual rankings are aggregated from this pool of user ratings. The site says that certain editorial selections (such as the inclusion of traditional dishes) are curated, but it does not specify too much about who qualifies as a culinary expert. It also states that new entries can be added by staff or suggested by users.

In 2023, one of the most-watched TV channels in France, TF1, accused TasteAtlas of rigging the results of a list about the best cheeses in the world. Italian cheeses were ranked higher than French ones, which caused quite an uproar. It prompted Matija Babic to publish a detailed article denying these claims and providing more details about TasteAtlas's methodology.

He wrote, "Our key mechanism is a system we developed that differentiates genuine from invalid votes. We track the visitor's behaviour on our web, we track all his ratings, and depending on whether the system recognises him as a real visitor or as a nationalist or a bot, his votes are recognised or ignored. You can't visit TasteAtlas, slap fives and fours on Italian cheeses, ones and twos on French, and expect your votes to count. You can't come to TasteAtlas, give a few ratings, and expect your votes to be valid."

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by TasteAtlas (@tasteatlas)

As for its rankings of world cuisines, TasteAtlas states, "Each country's rating is obtained by the users' average rating of the 30 best dishes, beverages and food products in that country. Countries that are not on the list do not have enough items rated."

Also Read: Why A Michelin Star Still Rules The Restaurant World (And Why India Has None Yet)

TasteAtlas's Controversial List Of "Worst-Rated Indian Foods"

In mid-2024, TasteAtlas published rankings of the best and worst-rated Indian foods. On the "best" side, the list featured familiar favourites such as Mango Lassi, Butter Chicken, Hyderabadi Biryani, Butter Garlic Naan and chai-masala among others. But the "worst-rated" list proved far more controversial: it included dishes and drinks deeply rooted in Indian culinary traditions, like Jal Jeera, Gajak, Upma, Malpua and more. That prompted outrage on social media, with many Indians questioning who rated these dishes and accusing the list of being out of touch with Indian taste.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by TasteAtlas (@tasteatlas)

Here's how Instagram users reacted to the viral post:

"'Best Rated' Indian Food is everything these guys get in their local Indian restaurants. And the things they can't find or haven't been habituated to are 'worst rated foods'."

"That fact that Mango Lassi is at the top, it's obvious who the audience was, bruh... such a basic answer."

"Never again disrespect Malpua and Upma."

"Jal jeera is the worst rated? Who even rated this???"

"Who is rating these foods? What are their qualifications? Are they Indian? Have they tried all of the foods mentioned? How could they pass a value judgement on something that is both personal and cultural, like our very diverse and local cuisines?"

In short, the list was viewed by many as poorly conceived and tone-deaf, underscoring the gap between a global food-ranking platform's calculations and the lived realities of Indian food culture.

The Legitimacy Debate: Why Many Chefs And Experts Push Back

Chefs, food scholars, culinary experts, writers and other professionals in the industry often challenge the idea of global numeric rankings for entire cuisines. Their concerns generally fall into clear categories:

1. Oversimplification: Reducing vast culinary traditions to a list strips context. For example, lumping all Indian food under one "best cuisine" score ignores the diversity of Kerala, Awadh, Bengal, Nagaland and countless others.
2. Unequal comparisons: Street foods like pani puri or tacos are judged on the same grid as plated dishes or elaborate regional preparations. This creates a false equivalence between entirely different culinary formats.
3. Unusual outcomes: Certain rankings have raised eyebrows, such as unexpectedly low placements for widely celebrated cuisines or extremely high scores for dishes that lack global reach.
4. Authority question: Can an algorithm combined with user opinions meaningfully compare dishes and cuisines?

To be clear, much of the criticism is about methodology, not the platform's existence. Critics generally agree that discovering foods online is enjoyable, but how they are introduced to an international audience also matters.

Why TasteAtlas Still Captures So Much Attention

Despite methodological concerns, TasteAtlas remains highly influential online. The platform's photograph-heavy layout and clean infographics are designed for instant shareability and seem to be ideal for Instagram, X (Twitter), Facebook, and WhatsApp forwards. Its listicles are structured to perform well on search engines, ensuring that each annual ranking reaches a global audience quickly. Any ranking involving countries triggers emotional responses. Indian users, for example, actively share lists where local dishes score well, driving more traffic and perpetual visibility. Finally, many food exchanges online have become increasingly list-centric, and TasteAtlas fits neatly into this ecosystem.

The Broader Issue: Can Food Ever Be Objectively Ranked?

Food is profoundly personal and culturally embedded. Even within India, biryani alone manifests as Hyderabadi, Lucknowi, Kolkata, Thalassery, Dindigul and several other variations. Each is fiercely defended as the "best." On a global scale, the subjective nature of taste becomes even harder to quantify.

Crowdsourced rankings like TasteAtlas appear democratic, but they also risk replicating issues with algorithms rather than genuine culinary insight. On the other hand, expert-led guides offer structure but can be criticised for elitism or bias toward fine dining. This raises a larger, unresolved question: Is it even possible to create a fair global index of food, or should such lists be treated as cultural snapshots rather than definitive rankings?

TasteAtlas has certainly influenced global food conversations on social media. Its lists are entertaining, viral, and often celebratory, but they are not synonymous with authoritative culinary judgment. For Indian readers, the platform can feel affirming when beloved dishes chart highly, yet the methodology behind these rankings remains partially opaque.

As food becomes increasingly globalised, and as debates over authenticity, representation, and cultural ownership intensify, the real question is not whether TasteAtlas is right or wrong, but who gets to define what "best" even means.