I started this thread with a vague question, but with several responses now, I'd like to add a point. Although I do think I might be overthinking and I may not be able to explain this very well, so bear with me.
I am posting this now after seeing a recommendation from Sophies Steakhouse. I have never been, but I have seen it mentioned in food threads here several times, so I am familiar with it and have viewed the online menu.
Now if I were to visit Sophies Steakhouse, chances are I would have a steak, as that is after all what they are known for (or at the very least that is what you would expect them to specialise in given the name). So the chances of me having the burger are fairly remote - I'd likely have a steak. If I was going out with the preconcieved notion of wanting a Burger, then it's more likely I would go to GBK or somewhere that is more well known for burgers.
But is this right? Is this what many do and is this how perhaps the best burgers fly under the radar?
The Sophies burger is probably better than a GBK burger, but who would know? Obviously they must sell enough to justify it's presence on the menu, but at Sophies a burger is an 'alternative' meal rather than a 'signature' meal.
Does this make sense? And if it does make sense, could it be the case that there are some damn good burgers out there that not many people know about because they wouldn't order it in that venue because they are there for something else?