This is a perfect example of how a bare minimum of basic sleuthing will uncover an answer.
This recipe was so horribly butchered, I decided to visit the author's profile. This person has seven recipes, three of which are for this particular dish. It appears that two recipes were completely bungled.
Unsurprisingly, it appears this author made zero effort to clean up their messes (i.e., the incomplete recipes) and left all three of them up on this website, submitting all three to the same contest.
That sort of outright sloppiness (not just this author but all sloppy authors on the Internet) makes me wonder whether or not it is worth a read.
This investigation took me less than thirty seconds and required zero technical expertise.
When you see a poorly written set of instructions (recipes or something else) on the Internet, the first step is to see if the instructions were posted elsewhere. In this case, they were -- ON THE SAME SITE.
This type of investigation isn't specific to Food52. The Internet is rampant with poorly edited/proofed writing (and it has gotten considerably worse in the past five years).
Take some time out to investigate for yourself and often you will have a clear answer in anywhere from 15-60 seconds.
Many if not most recipes on this site are submitted by home cooks, and anyone can submit a recipe, so many of the recipes on the site have not been tested. So on the one hand, it's wonderful that the founders of the site had the idea to endorse home cooks and their original or family recipes, many of which are wonderful, but the downside is that not everything is vetted, completed, or reliable. It looks like this one was added years ago for entry into one of the contests and the individual never finished the task. That person may no longer be available or active on the site, although the idea for this recipe looks interesting. You may do better searching for a recipe on the site that has been vetted (it will have the notation "test-kitchen approved" meaning that site users and/or the editors have tested the recipe.
That said, there do happen to be some great user-submitted recipes here that have not yet made it to "test-kitchen approved" status, if you're open-minded and willing to give them a try. But this one is likely to remain incomplete; I'm afraid you'd probably have to wing it.
2 Comments
This recipe was so horribly butchered, I decided to visit the author's profile. This person has seven recipes, three of which are for this particular dish. It appears that two recipes were completely bungled.
Unsurprisingly, it appears this author made zero effort to clean up their messes (i.e., the incomplete recipes) and left all three of them up on this website, submitting all three to the same contest.
That sort of outright sloppiness (not just this author but all sloppy authors on the Internet) makes me wonder whether or not it is worth a read.
Anyhow, a third recipe appears to be complete:
https://food52.com/recipes/19986-rooting-for-you-soup
This investigation took me less than thirty seconds and required zero technical expertise.
When you see a poorly written set of instructions (recipes or something else) on the Internet, the first step is to see if the instructions were posted elsewhere. In this case, they were -- ON THE SAME SITE.
This type of investigation isn't specific to Food52. The Internet is rampant with poorly edited/proofed writing (and it has gotten considerably worse in the past five years).
Take some time out to investigate for yourself and often you will have a clear answer in anywhere from 15-60 seconds.
Best of luck.
That said, there do happen to be some great user-submitted recipes here that have not yet made it to "test-kitchen approved" status, if you're open-minded and willing to give them a try. But this one is likely to remain incomplete; I'm afraid you'd probably have to wing it.