Philadelphia Hotels snapshot: 87 analyzed locations, 120,157 published reviews, and a reported average rating of 4.22.
Philadelphia hotel review coverage
Evidence
Evidence snapshot
The article uses this Google Maps dataset scope before interpreting review themes.
- Locations
- 87
- Published reviews
- 120,157
- Reviews analyzed
- 5,999
- Average rating
- 4.22
This Philadelphia snapshot covers 87 analyzed hotel locations, with a reported average rating of 4.22 alongside 120,157 published reviews. The figures provide a bounded view of one locality in Pennsylvania, distinguishing the number of properties examined from the volume of reviews attached to them. They should be read as a snapshot rather than a claim about all hotels in the area.
Evidence:
- Snapshot: analyzed locations: 87; published reviews: 120,157; reported average rating: 4.22; localities count: 1
Room feedback reaches beyond the main bed
Evidence
Room evidence
Google Maps reviews show how this topic splits between complaints and praise.
- Complaint share
- 20.05
- Praise share
- 47.57
- Complaint share
- 20.1%
- Praise share
- 47.6%
- Reviews analyzed
- 5,999
Clean.
Tiny rooms.
The illustrative room comment focuses on a sofa bed, specifically describing stains on both its mattress and the accompanying pillows. This language shows that a guest may evaluate secondary sleeping arrangements and related soft furnishings as part of the room experience. It is one account and does not describe the condition of other rooms or room features.
Evidence:
- Room: percentage: 20.05%; reported praise percentage (denominator not supplied): 47.57%; sample reviews analyzed: 5,999
- Illustrative room comment: Our room came with a sofa bed and the pillows are badly stained and the sofa bed mattress is also stained.
Front-desk conduct shapes the service account
Evidence
Service evidence
Google Maps reviews show how this topic splits between complaints and praise.
- Complaint share
- 16.19
- Praise share
- 42.19
- Complaint share
- 16.2%
- Praise share
- 42.2%
- Reviews analyzed
- 5,999
Friendly staff.
Terrible customer service.
The service comment centers on a named front-desk employee whom the reviewer characterizes as extremely rude. Its practical meaning is narrow but clear: the criticism concerns the employee’s manner and suitability for a guest-facing role, rather than response time or resolution of a specific request. This single account does not establish how other interactions were handled.
Evidence:
- Service: percentage: 16.19%; reported praise percentage (denominator not supplied): 42.19%; sample reviews analyzed: 5,999
- Illustrative service comment: Colleen is extremely rude and shouldn’t work at the front desk .
Location described through walking distance and street context
Evidence
Location evidence
Google Maps reviews show how this topic splits between complaints and praise.
- Complaint share
- 9.02
- Praise share
- 39.94
- Complaint share
- 9%
- Praise share
- 39.9%
- Reviews analyzed
- 5,999
Great location.
Only thing going for it is the location.
The location comment describes a short walk from multiple hotels and identifies the reviewer’s lodging near Broad Street and Locust Street. Rather than offering a broad judgment about the neighborhood, it conveys location through pedestrian distance and recognizable street context. The account illustrates one person’s route and does not characterize transportation access or the wider area.
Evidence:
- Location: percentage: 9.02%; reported praise percentage (denominator not supplied): 39.94%; sample reviews analyzed: 5,999
- Illustrative location comment: A short walk from multiple hotels; we stayed at the DoubleTree right off Broad St and Locust.