Philadelphia Restaurants snapshot: 147 analyzed locations, 103,259 published reviews, and a reported average rating of 4.34.
The operating picture behind the snapshot
Evidence
Evidence snapshot
The article uses this Aggregate dataset scope before interpreting review themes.
- Locations
- 147
- Published reviews
- 103,259
- Reviews analyzed
- 13,086
- Average rating
- 4.34
The snapshot covers 147 analyzed restaurant locations, alongside 103,259 published reviews and a reported average rating of 4.34. These figures establish the breadth and public-feedback context of the analysis without showing how individual locations differ. Because the coverage spans one locality, operators should read the findings as a bounded view rather than a statewide portrait.
Evidence:
- Snapshot: analyzed locations: 147; published reviews: 103,259; reported average rating: 4.34; localities count: 1
What guests discuss about food
Evidence
Platform comparison
Compare platform-level rating and review volume before treating one channel as the full market.
- Google Maps
- 4.43
- Tripadvisor
- 4.31
- Google Maps
- 4.43 rating · 1,414 avg reviews
- Tripadvisor
- 4.31 rating · 480 avg reviews
Food emerges as a distinct subject in the review material, making it a useful lens for examining how guests describe the dining experience. The available topic signal does not reveal which dishes, preparation details, or service moments shaped those comments, so the practical question is which specific aspects of food guests chose to mention.
Evidence:
- Food: percentage: 12.41%; reported praise percentage (denominator not supplied): 77.33%; sample reviews analyzed: 13,086
Accommodation shapes service language
One guest described staff members as kind and accommodating toward a group of friends. That account shows how service feedback can focus on interpersonal treatment and flexibility, rather than only transactional details. It remains one illustrative experience, but its wording highlights the guest’s appreciation of how the group was received and supported.
Evidence:
- Service: percentage: 9.89%; reported praise percentage (denominator not supplied): 58.18%; sample reviews analyzed: 13,086
- Illustrative service comment: The Staff here is very nice and accommodating for me and my friends !
Wait-time feedback needs closer context
Wait time appears as a defined subject within the review material, giving operators a focused way to examine comments about the pace of an experience. The topic signal alone does not identify whether guests were discussing seating, ordering, food arrival, or another stage, so those distinct moments should not be treated as interchangeable.
Evidence:
- Wait time: percentage: 12.35%; reported praise percentage (denominator not supplied): 23.67%; sample reviews analyzed: 13,086