Philadelphia Restaurants snapshot: 35 analyzed locations, 49,488 published reviews, and a reported average rating of 4.43.
A bounded view of Philadelphia restaurant feedback
Evidence
Evidence snapshot
The article uses this Google Maps dataset scope before interpreting review themes.
- Locations
- 35
- Published reviews
- 49,488
- Reviews analyzed
- 2,449
- Average rating
- 4.43
This snapshot covers 35 analyzed restaurant locations in Philadelphia, with a reported average rating of 4.43 alongside 49,488 published reviews. It offers a defined view of Google Maps activity within one locality in Pennsylvania, rather than a picture of every restaurant or guest experience across the city or state.
Evidence:
- Snapshot: analyzed locations: 35; published reviews: 49,488; reported average rating: 4.43; localities count: 1
Food as a subject in the reviewed feedback
Evidence
Food evidence
Google Maps reviews show how this topic splits between complaints and praise.
- Complaint share
- 11.27
- Praise share
- 58.15
- Complaint share
- 11.3%
- Praise share
- 58.2%
- Reviews analyzed
- 2,449
Great food.
14 min no drinks still.
Food appears as a defined subject within the reviewed material, indicating that diners discussed this part of their restaurant experiences. The available illustrative comment is about loud music interfering with conversation and meal enjoyment, not about the food itself, and is therefore not used to interpret the food theme. The topic signal does not reveal which specific food qualities guests discussed.
Evidence:
- Food: percentage: 11.27%; reported praise percentage (denominator not supplied): 58.15%; sample reviews analyzed: 2,449
Service in the reviewed feedback
Evidence
Service evidence
Google Maps reviews show how this topic splits between complaints and praise.
- Complaint share
- 10.0
- Praise share
- 44.83
- Complaint share
- 10%
- Praise share
- 44.8%
- Reviews analyzed
- 2,449
Great service.
Horrible service
Service appears as a defined subject within the reviewed material, showing that guest comments addressed interactions with restaurant staff. One illustrative comment describes staff as kind and accommodating toward a group of friends, offering a concrete example of positive service language. As a single account, it illustrates one experience but does not represent service across the full restaurant sample.
Evidence:
- Service: percentage: 10.0%; reported praise percentage (denominator not supplied): 44.83%; sample reviews analyzed: 2,449
- Illustrative service comment: The Staff here is very nice and accommodating for me and my friends !
Wait time as a distinct review theme
Evidence
Wait Time evidence
Google Maps reviews show how this topic splits between complaints and praise.
- Complaint share
- 9.92
- Praise share
- 9.47
- Complaint share
- 9.9%
- Praise share
- 9.5%
- Reviews analyzed
- 2,449
1518 was a great experience for happy hour: we got well drinks for $5 and were able to be seated instantly on a Wednesday night.
18% Surcharge if your Bill is over $50 Robbery Prices are High Enough O Wait Cash Only !!
Wait time appears as a defined subject within the reviewed material, indicating that some comments addressed this aspect of the restaurant experience. The available illustrative comment concerns assistance with a party, policies, and booking a reservation rather than time spent waiting, so it is not used to interpret this theme. The topic signal alone does not identify the particular waiting experiences described.
Evidence:
- Wait time: percentage: 9.92%; reported praise percentage (denominator not supplied): 9.47%; sample reviews analyzed: 2,449