Review themes
Patterns derived from the analyzed public-review sample. Repeated negative themes apply an explicit penalty.
Published methodology · Version 1.2
How we score senior care providers
The score is a consistent comparison aid built from public evidence. It is not a clinical assessment, government rating, endorsement or guarantee of current care quality.
The formula
Five weighted components, scored out of 100
Businesses cannot pay to change an earned score or confidence label.
Google rating
The public aggregate rating normalized to a 0–100 scale. Missing ratings contribute no points.
Review volume
A logarithmic measure that rewards a broader evidence base without letting very large counts dominate.
Review recency
More recent dated evidence scores higher, with older evidence decaying over time.
Listing completeness
Basic decision-useful fields such as contact details, hours, location and official-registry matching where available.
Confidence and limits
Read the score with its evidence
Confidence is separate
Confidence reflects how much usable review and listing evidence supports the score. Medium and high labels require minimum totals for public reviews, analyzed observations and observations containing recognized care themes. Confidence does not mean the provider is better.
Text is summarized, not copied
We publish derived themes and evidence counts, not reviewer names or raw third-party review text.
Always verify current facts
Scores cannot establish present staffing, clinical fit, availability, licensing status, inspection outcomes or price.
Publication rules
Conservative categories and local evidence
Discovery-search wording can flag a record for review, but it is not enough on its own to publish a care-type claim. Public categories require direct listing or official-registry evidence, plus editorial review.
For the Windsor launch, each scored provider has a 10-review analysis sample. The directory identifies the verification date so readers know when the underlying record was checked.
See the Windsor comparison →