Free Restaurant Reputation Health Scorecard

The Trusted band (61-85%) is the operational target for most independent restaurants and the floor below which marketing investment in other channels (paid search, paid social, influencer) starts producing diminishing returns. Below the Trusted floor, every other marketing dollar works harder if you spend it on reputation first, because reputation is the conversion-level filter that runs before any other channel touches the prospect. Above the Trusted ceiling (in the Authoritative band 86-100%), you are out-ranking and out-converting most local competitors and the reputation flywheel compounds into discovery without additional input.

Quarterly. The dimensions move in different directions depending on which operational levers you have pulled in the preceding 90 days, and the right next investment is rarely the same one twice in a row. The most common operator mistake is to fix Velocity (because it is the most common weakest dimension) and then plateau because no one re-scored to identify that Response is now the bottleneck. Lock the quarterly re-score into the operating calendar as a 15-minute slot.

Because Google's local pack algorithm treats review velocity as a freshness signal on par with the rating itself. A restaurant with 600 reviews averaging 4.6 but no new reviews in 6 months ranks materially worse than a restaurant with 200 reviews averaging 4.5 of which 40 are from the last 90 days. Operators routinely under-invest in Velocity because the rating is the visible number, but the velocity is what keeps the rating in the search results. The scorecard weights all six dimensions equally because the algorithm does.

Standing up the four touchpoints (QR ask, receipt CTA, post-visit SMS, recovery follow-up) is materially harder if your POS cannot share its guest data with a CRM and trigger the post-visit message off the checkout event. The right move is usually to upgrade the POS rather than to layer a third-party reputation tool on top of a stack that cannot share its data cleanly; layered tools produce three months of dashboard enthusiasm followed by quiet abandonment as the manager drifts back to working out of Gmail. Tableview's POS bakes the four touchpoints directly into the platform so the ask flow runs without any individual operator remembering to trigger it.

Yes, but run it per location. Reputation is intrinsically local because the algorithms that score it are local-pack-driven. A chain that scores its average across locations will hide the locations doing badly behind the locations doing well; the right approach is to score every location, identify the locations in the At-risk and Visible bands, and apply the operator playbook from the guide to those locations first. Cross-location reporting (which location has the highest Velocity, which has the highest Recovery rate) creates the right competitive dynamic between GMs.

It does the diagnostic and surface part of what those tools do; it does not aggregate reviews from multiple platforms into a single inbox or run automated review request campaigns. Most independent operators do not need the inbox aggregation because they can manage Google, Yelp and TripAdvisor directly from each platform's own UI; the automated request campaigns work better when they are native to the POS and CRM (as Tableview's platform supports) rather than a layered third-party tool. Use the scorecard quarterly to identify the weakest dimension and the guide to fix it; the third-party tools become useful at scale (10+ locations) where the operational tax of managing the inbox manually starts to outweigh the integration cost.

Yes - the scorecard runs entirely in your browser with no server-side state, so the natural sharing flow is to take a screenshot at the end of the run and circulate it to the management team. The most valuable share is the per-dimension breakdown (which dimensions are healthy, which are weak) rather than the overall tier, because the dimension scores are actionable and the overall tier is the lagging indicator. Pair the share with the 'fix this next' recommendation so the team has a clear next step rather than a vague 'we should work on reviews'.