Start with a real experience.
Food preferences contain more context than a single public number can hold. You may love one place for a particular dish and another for an evening with friends. A personal ranking is useful because its job is narrower: help you remember your own choices and what you would return for.
In Laff, the visit comes first. A reaction records whether the experience was liked, fine or not for you. That is enough to begin without writing a long review at the window. More detail can live with the visit when it is useful to you.
Make a smaller decision.
A pairwise comparison puts two experiences next to each other. The question is concrete: which would you choose to revisit? You do not need to invent an absolute scale for every truck in the city. You need to decide between the places in front of you.
That choice still deserves the right context. Compare places you actually tried, and answer from the experience you remember. A fashionable name or somebody else’s enthusiasm can be interesting information without having to become your own preference.
Let the journal carry the detail.
A photograph, visit date or a few words can explain why a place stayed with you. The ranking gives you an order; the journal gives you the memories around it. Keeping both is more useful than forcing all of that context into one score.
Friends’ visits can offer another starting point for discovery. Read who went and what they said. Their account helps you choose an outing, while your eventual visit supplies your own evidence. Agreement is pleasant; a useful personal record does not require it.
Try the small decision above.
The illustrated saj and burger are a local interaction example. Pick one and see how a choice takes its place. Resetting undoes the demonstration. It does not submit a review, change a merchant score or save a preference to your account.
