GetBetter

and inconsistently labeled units

And if I’m using my phone every other line has 50 ads

Every time my wife or I look up a recipe we start singing "when I was a young warthog..."

I came here to ask, "where is the 20 page long family history that makes you get a RSI from scrolling down to see the ingredients" but this will do too

Yeah, what if you want to do something like: "Seperate the yolks from the whites, beat the whites until they're fluffy and then add sugar and mix with the rest." And then a later step doing something with the yolks. I don't see how you would do that here without it turning into an unreadable mess.

I feel like this is less useful for a recipe you're making for the first time or make once in a while, but probably pretty handy as a quick reference for something you make regularly.

I believe www.cookingforengineers.com , but it’s either down or doesn’t like my VPN, so I can’t verify.

If the last 4 ingredients need mixing together first, then you simply have a mix column with just those ingredient rows under the mix column from above to show that those get mixed independently in parallel. This recipe implies that is unnecessary for this food though.

It clearly shows the sequential and parallel threads of execution:

• up/down: parallel.
• left to right: sequential

It clearly shows the sequence of produced intermediate results, split and merging points:

• a row that splits into two rows is one step producing more than one result. Like spliting yolk and whites.
• many rows becoming one: merging node. Like baking many ingredients.

For example, the last 4 ingredients should be mixed together independently before folding in to the base.

Isn't that indicated by the combination of rows?

I like this chart. It even allows for ~~multithreaded~~ multi-person baking, because the combination of rows indicates where processes are merged (and need to be done).

Edit: I may be dumb. A mix step is missing below the mix block of the other ingredients, but it could easily be included.

Because it fits on a little card. Which everyone used to keep recipes on for a long time. Little boxes full of recipe cards.

But how are they supposed to fit irrelevant descriptions of their family's history with the dish in that format??

My guess is that it has to do with the variations from brand to brand and clarifying that this particular recipe used that brand to get the expected taste. Assuming they didn't enshitify their version with cheaper ingredients.

Though I hate recipes that say something like "one can" or "one package". Even without shrinkflation, different brands sometimes use different sizes (if no brand is specified).

Though if it's a published recipe, I agree with the other comment saying that money probably exchanged hands, and that deal might even be the only reason that recipe is featured at all, because it was probably a "publish recipes that sell more of our shit" rather than "fit our shit into your recipes where possible". Guessing the whole thing might have started with "inventory of our cocoa powder is piling up, sales team gets a bonus if they can get it sold (and we'll lay off the people producing it for a bit)".

Perhaps the recipe calls for vomit flavored chocolate that other brands cant match.

https://mossblaser.github.io/recipe_grid/tutorial.html#splitting-recipe-components-up

someone figured out a way

Also an issue if you need to add an ingredient at more than one step. Suddenly you've got no good way of indicating the total amount you need for the recipe as well as the amounts for the individual steps. This is great for a specific kind of extremely simple recipe only.

You melt the butter, then add the next 3 ingredients and mix everything, etc...

Top down and left to right.