An average review score can conceal very different guest experiences. A practical review should combine the rating with recurring themes, sample size, travel context and evidence from the hotel’s own operation.
Online reviews are self-selected and platform samples differ; do not treat them as a representative survey or proof of cause. Explore Feathers Hospitality’s asset-management approach, operations platform and contact team.
In brief
- Check the sample and rating distribution.
- Group comments by operational theme.
- Test one response and measure its effect.
Read the distribution, not only the average
Record the number of reviews, score spread, date range and platform for each report. Two properties with the same mean may have very different consistency. A small run of extreme scores can change an average substantially, so show the count and distribution alongside the headline figure.
Cornell’s study examined more than 95,000 reviews for a particular sample of independent high-end hotels. Its findings offer a method to think about themes and consistency, not a target score for a hotel in Portugal or a prediction for this property.
Group comments into service themes
Sort feedback into areas such as arrival, cleanliness, sleep, food, communication, maintenance and value. Keep the original text accessible only to authorised reviewers, and use a short theme label for team discussion. Avoid a category so broad that a room issue and a billing issue become indistinguishable.
Record whether a comment describes a single incident, a recurring problem or an expectation that was not clear. A phrase such as “the room was noisy” does not identify the source by itself. Compare it with room location, maintenance logs and any other evidence before deciding what happened.
Add context without dismissing the guest
Note travel dates, length of stay, room type and relevant service conditions where the information is available and lawful to use. Compare similar periods and experiences; a review during a disruption may not be comparable with a quiet week. The purpose is to understand context, not to discredit a person’s account.
Research on hotel reviews, including work on Lisbon hotels, finds that reviewer and hotel characteristics can affect ratings or themes. Those samples do not explain every local comment. State the scope and limits when presenting results to a manager or owner.
Separate frequency, severity and reach
Count how often a theme appears and identify the operational consequence. One safety or access issue may deserve urgent action even if it appears in very few reviews. A frequent minor inconvenience may need a process change rather than a major investment. Define a route to escalate serious issues regardless of their rating.
Weight a theme using agreed criteria such as guest impact, safety, cost, frequency and ability to fix. Do not let a dashboard formula suppress a low-frequency concern that requires investigation. Keep the reasoning visible so different departments can challenge the interpretation.
Combine guest comments with operating records
Compare feedback with response times, maintenance tickets, room moves, cleanliness checks, availability and complaint outcomes. These records can confirm that a process changed, but they do not replace the guest’s experience. Check whether the hotel’s own channels and public platforms tell a consistent story.
Avoid claiming that one operational factor caused a score change unless the evidence supports it. When a platform changes its review scale or collection method, mark the break in the data. Keep the same definitions over time or document why they changed.
Turn the review into a testable action
Choose one theme, name the process owner and make a change that can be observed. Define what success would look like, how long to test and which other indicators must not worsen. Tell the relevant team what the comments show without sharing names or personal details unnecessarily.
After the test, compare the same measures and review new comments for the intended theme. If nothing changes, revisit the diagnosis rather than blaming staff or guests. Close the loop by recording what changed, what remains uncertain and when the team will review the issue again.
Frequently asked questions
Should the highest-volume complaint always be fixed first?
Not always. Consider severity, safety, guest impact, frequency, cost and whether the issue can be addressed effectively.
Can an average review score be used as a staff target?
Use caution. Ratings are affected by sample and context; pair them with fair, controllable measures and qualitative evidence.