Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

Finally. I was wondering why this place, which finds itself on the "top" lists hasn't been reviewed by AHT yet.
To the point: I find the review and subsequent comments to be on target: Paul's is not the best burger in town. But it is a great PLACE TO HAVE A BURGER. The atmosphere and service is the reason to come here, over more quiet joints that serve much better burgers. The way the burger is prepared, that is the beef to bun ratio, demands you to take things more lightheartedly: This is not your bourgeois burger joint, and things will get messy. (As for napkin-stinginess, when the stranger next to me spilled ketchup on my white button up, the burger flipper gave me a wet kitchen towel to clean up - so maybe they are just being eco-conscious, but with good service)

As for the comment that there is "no wait," the observation is not wholly accurate, as I find there is always a crowd at Paul's, but people tend to come and go quickly. I enjoyed a good burger here after an athletic match, and the shakes are damn good. Fries were not memorable. Bottom line is come here for the decor and the people, but the village has better burgers elsewhere. (And please, if you're going to go to Veselka, order something else besides the burger.)

I could write a treatise on the importance of food texture, but don't have it in me right now.

At least most of us agree that Paul's burger texture is very distinctive. What some call unpleasantly "mushy," I call sublimely moist and tender.

Some comments suggest that there is such a thing as a perfect burger, that a good burger must have certain qualities. But I am sure many would agree with me that burger diversity is a good thing. The world is a better place with both thin and fat patties, charred and crumbly burgers, plain burgers and those with lots of extras, burgers on plain buns and those on fancy brioche... I could go on. Criticism is a good thing, but I don't think there should be many absolute standards for burgers.