Kansas City Restaurants snapshot: 30 analyzed locations, 22,867 published reviews, and a reported average rating of 4.46.

A bounded view of Kansas City restaurants

Evidence

Evidence snapshot

The article uses this Google Maps dataset scope before interpreting review themes.

Locations
30
Published reviews
22,867
Reviews analyzed
2,207
Average rating
4.46

This Kansas City snapshot covers 30 analyzed restaurant locations, alongside 22,867 published reviews and a reported average rating of 4.46. Because the figures cover one locality and a defined set of locations, they provide a focused view of the included businesses rather than a picture of every restaurant across Missouri.

Evidence:

  • Snapshot: analyzed locations: 30; published reviews: 22,867; reported average rating: 4.46; localities count: 1

Food feedback includes the full café offering

Food appears as a distinct subject in the review material, and one illustrative comment describes both the coffee and food positively. That wording frames the visit as a combined café experience rather than isolating a single dish, though one account cannot establish how broadly other guests viewed the menu.

Evidence:

  • Food: percentage: 12.1%; reported praise percentage (denominator not supplied): 56.14%; sample reviews analyzed: 2,207
  • Illustrative food comment: Really good place for coffee and food.

Service stands as its own feedback lens

Evidence

Service evidence

Google Maps reviews show how this topic splits between complaints and praise.

Topic share
Complaint share
8.97
Praise share
39.6
Complaint share
9%
Praise share
39.6%
Reviews analyzed
2,207
Praise example
Great food and service.
Complaint example
10 minutes later, a manager finally came by (this is after 3 tables who sat and ordered after us received their food) and told us that our food was being expedited.

Service is identifiable as a topic within the review material, giving operators a bounded lens on how guests discuss interactions around the dining experience. The supplied illustrative comment does not literally describe service, so it cannot clarify which moments, behaviors, or expectations sit behind this topic signal.

Evidence:

  • Service: percentage: 8.97%; reported praise percentage (denominator not supplied): 39.6%; sample reviews analyzed: 2,207

Wait time warrants precise reading

Evidence

Wait Time evidence

Google Maps reviews show how this topic splits between complaints and praise.

Topic share
Complaint share
8.25
Praise share
10.06
Complaint share
8.3%
Praise share
10.1%
Reviews analyzed
2,207
Praise example
8pm dinner reservation for 6 people on Saturday night during restaurant week.
Complaint example
Can’t wait to come back!

Wait time is present as a topic in the review material, separating timing-related feedback from broader descriptions of a restaurant visit. The illustrative comment only says the guest entered to check in for an outside table; it does not describe a delay, its duration, or the guest’s judgment of it.

Evidence:

  • Wait time: percentage: 8.25%; reported praise percentage (denominator not supplied): 10.06%; sample reviews analyzed: 2,207