Webware

Got some stuff sitting in your pantry that's been there a little too long? The expiration date is just around the corner, and you want to cook something new that doesn't require going to the store? Lucky for you there's SuperCook, a service that lets you figure out things to eat based on what you've got. Unlike some other services that do this, SuperCook separates the wheat from the chaff (poor choice of phrases I know) by showing you the recipes you can make with what's in your kitchen, and those that require a few extra items to match up with their original recipe.

Let SuperCook know what's in your kitchen, and it'll do the rest.

(Credit: CNET Networks)

To add items to your virtual kitchen, you can simply start typing names in. SuperCook's got a suggest-as-you-type feature that makes it pretty simple to add a lot of items quickly like you would with tags on Flickr. Once they've been added they stay there until you remove them, meaning you can come back to the site later on and make a few adjustments to get updated recipes. This is especially helpful with spices, as a few added or missing ones can change hundreds of recipes at a time. Users who sign up can get their kitchens permanently saved, along with the option to bookmark recipes they like.

In addition to its recipe recommendation by ingredient service, SuperCook gives you Amazon.com-like recommendations for other ingredients you should pick up based on what you've got laying about. What's interesting here is that these recommended ingredients change based on what type of dish you're working on, as the service lets you cycle between entrees, starters, and deserts. It's also a super-simple way to stock up your virtual kitchen without having to type what's there.

I like this service already, but it's in a very crowded space. Other sites like Allrecipes, RecipeMatcher, Google Base (recipe version), and Snacksby have been around a little longer and offer similar functionality that most folks will be happy with. I still prefer SuperCook's virtual kitchen idea and ingredient recommendations, which I think make it more useful than most.

Kristina Nielsen has a growing collection of recipes, culled from friends, family members, magazines, books, Web sites and the occasional food package label. She keeps some of them in a binder and some loosely shoved in a drawer; some are neatly printed, some hastily scribbled on notes. Others live online in her recipe boxes on various sites. Together they represent the culmination of the 10 years she's spent learning how to cook new dishes. Now, a company called TasteBook wants to take Kristina's recipe collection--and those of amateur chefs like her--into the 21st century.

A sample of a customized cookbook printed by TasteBook.

(Credit: TasteBook)

TasteBook, which plans to launch Tuesday, hopes to create an easy way for people to find recipes and print out their own customized, hardcover cookbooks. A number of self-service publishing services like Blurb, Lulu and Xlibris already allow people to upload their own pictures and text and publish a hardcover book. TasteBook takes the basic idea of those services and caters the process specifically to making recipe books.

TasteBook has two key features: first, it simplifies searching for recipes online by indexing recipes from all over the Web into one list of search results. It then allows people to select recipes from those search results and print them out in a professional-looking cookbook.

At launch, the TasteBook site will include about 25,000 recipes from Epicurious, but the company plans to expand its service to include recipes from other sites beginning next year. People can automatically important their Epicurious recipe boxes and can also upload their own recipes and include them in the books they print.

For $34.95, a user can print a hardcover binder with handpicked cover art and up to 100 recipes with their own comments added. If all 100 recipes aren't used initially, TasteBook will issue credits for the remaining recipes, which can be printed out later and added to the binder or sent to friends.

To avoid copyright issues with the sites that publish recipes, TasteBook licenses recipes from their original publishers when they are printed out. And on TasteBook.com, users can see only previews of recipes. To view a recipe in its entirety, they have to click through to the original recipe site. In this way, TasteBook hopes to drive traffic back to those sites and focus more on recipe discovery and printing rather than getting into the business of creating recipes themselves.

Company co-founder Kamran Mohsenin likens the online interface to that of another bit of well-known software. "We're basically doing the iTunes model," Mohsenin said. "If you know how to use iTunes, you know how to use TasteBook." In addition to acting as an intermediary between consumers and content publishers, TasteBook has a service similar to iTunes Essentials, which are pre-compiled playlists users can browse and use to discover new artists and songs. TasteBook currently has about a dozen featured collections, such as kid-friendly or vegetarian recipes, that users can browse to get ideas.

TasteBook is launching simply, but the company has plans to expand in the coming year by forming new partnerships with other recipe sites, adding more featured recipe collections with various themes and authors and by supporting user-generated photos. They'll also be "turning up the social factor because (cooking is) a very social thing," Mohsenin said. But out of the gate, they're not attempting to become another social networking site.

The company was founded by two former employees of Ofoto (now Kodak Gallery)--Ofoto co-founder Mohsenin and former Chief Technical Architect Greg Schroeder. Don't be surprised to see them delve into other niches eventually. It's the dedication to a specific hobby that sets TasteBook apart from other types of publishing services that don't get involved in the content itself, Mohsenin said.

"We're creating a new category (of publishing), called the custom book. The idea is that we actually understand what 1 cup of milk means. So we can go to Chow or Epicurious and crawl and parse those recipes, and we can attach nutrition data because we understand what a recipe is," he said. That same TasteBook model could be applied to any number of do-it-yourself hobbies with a passionate user base with specialized knowledge and needs.

Update on October 24, 2007: TasteBook announced Tuesday night that it has received funding from CondeNet, publisher of Epicurious.com.

Conde Nast's Epicurious, the granddaddy of culinary Web sites, recently debuted a newly nipped-and-tucked design. The site's modular layout and increased emphasis on community have prompted more than one blogger to declare it "Epicurious 2.0." By making its content easier to find and adding more opportunity for members to interact, Epicurious has managed to stay one step ahead of other "old-media" sites, such as MyRecipes, Time Warner's recently launched foodie portal.

The new Epicurious home page includes more defined white space, larger images, and prominently placed links to community features, including a chat room. Video resources are easier to find, too, via a link in the top navigation bar. Gone are the confusing promos and links to the Epicurious Shop, which competed with editorial content on the front page.

The spare design flows throughout the site. Recipe pages in particular are a lot easier to read, given that (as Faith at Apartment Therapy: Kitchen points out) the first few user opinions are no longer displayed beneath the recipe--a convenience we're happy to sacrifice in favor of a cleaner look. Forums are also easy on the eyes, though I found it frustrating that I had to click each reply within a thread--once I've selected a thread, why not show me the whole conversation?

In a nod to social network sites such as BakeSpace (review) and GroupRecipes (review), Epicurious has beefed up its community features, making it easier to share your own recipes with the network. Member-submitted recipes are still largely segregated from the magazine content and are not included in primary search results--but you are given the option, after searching, to look in "member recipes" for your query terms. I'd prefer if one click could search both databases. The results could still be divided by source--I do like to know whether I'm getting a professionally developed recipe--but this would provide a helpful single-page overview of all the content available.

The redesign also includes some tweaks to member profiles, letting you add an "About Me" paragraph and designate a recipe from your recipe box as "What I'm Cooking Now." You can also check off your food interests from a list of topics that range from Adventurous Eating to Wine and everything in between. What's missing: a friend list, or some other way to indicate your favorite commenters and forum posters. For instance, I would love to be able to designate another member as my culinary mentor and then automatically follow what he/she is cooking.

My colleagues and I agree on one key issue with the new site: Pages are often slow to load. We're hoping speed will improve once traffic settles back into its normal patterns, because in all other respects the redesign is a big step forward for users.

A lot of chefs will say that you're not a real cook if you have to have to work from a recipe, which I'm going to go ahead and dispute right now. Some of us with sophisticated palates just require a little more structure than others.

Since discovering new recipes online is my favorite pastime, I'm usually an Epicurious kind of gal--great content, easy to use--but GroupRecipes.com has taken recipe sites to a cool social/interactive level. It's got a lot of the standard Web 2.0 features: users can create a foodie profile, add friends, tag recipes and restaurants to their heart's content, join discussion groups and upload videos of themselves doing their best Emeril or Rachael Ray impression.

(Credit: CNET Networks)

However, the algorithm used to recommend recipes that "Roger the Recipe Robot" thinks you would like is the most delicious part. Once you sign up it asks you to rate a series of food types (onions, dairy, mustard) and cuisines (Indian, French, Thai). As you browse recipes and your fellow foodies, a taste compatibility rating is rendered, telling you how much you have in common with the tastes of each user, as well as how much your preferences overlap with individual recipes.

Under the "Explore" menu you can input any food you'd like to "stumble" through--a la StumbleUpon. I typed in goat cheese, which brought up Cheese Soup and Cheese Fondue (boring), Old-Fashioned Mac and Cheese (if I'm in the right mood) and Ricotta Cheese Pancakes (now you have my attention). The more time you spend clicking around on the site, GroupRecipes CEO Kristopher Lederer assured me, the more accurate the suggestions will be. (In true Web 2.0 fashion, Lederer has nicknamed himself Chief GroupRecipes Nerd.)

In his previous life, Lederer studied under some of the foremost regression analysis experts in the nation. So naturally, he took his knowledge and applied it to his own recipe-swapping food site. "I started getting into cooking a little bit, and realized that these (recipe) sites haven't changed since '99. They're not harnessing any type of social or collective wisdom," he said.

FYI, don't spend too much time on this site at work. It will just make you really, really hungry.

See also: BakeSpace