Per-platform ratings and review volume with peer compare

What this section of the drill-in shows

When you click any franchisee tile on the Reputation board, a slider opens for that office. The second section inside it, labeled Per platform, holds four peer-compared tiles: Google rating, Google reviews, Yelp rating, and Yelp reviews. Where the Composite reputation section above it gives you one blended number, Per platform breaks that number back out into the two review platforms feeding it, and adds something the composite score doesn't carry on its own: how much review volume is actually behind each rating.

Everything in this section is built from what the franchisee's connected Google Business Profile and Yelp listing already show the public. HQ reads the aggregate, the star average and the count, never a reviewer's name or the words of an actual review, and never anything from the franchisee's private business records.

Where to find it

Open Reputation from the HQ sidebar at hq.verinode.ai/reputation, in the Revenue group. Click any tile in any of the four franchisee rows (Below Threshold, Declining Trend, Top Performers, Most Reviewed) to open that office's detail slider. Per platform sits directly beneath Composite reputation, under the same scope switcher, laid out as a two-by-two grid of tiles: Google rating and Google reviews on the top row, Yelp rating and Yelp reviews underneath.

The slider header above both sections names the franchisee, its status (Seeded, Invited, or Active), its location when your network's entity model allows named locations, and a pill. That pill shows the office's review trend ("Trend: improving," "Trend: stable," or "Trend: declining") when Verinode has computed one, or, when no trend is known yet, its combined review count instead: "N reviews" in green, or "No reviews" in neutral gray when neither platform has a review on file. That fallback pill is the first place review volume shows up in this drill-in, before you even reach the Per platform section itself.

The four tiles

Each tile follows the same shape: the office's own value in large type, a peer median line underneath once the comparison qualifies, a colored delta against that median, and, where a network program has set a target on that specific metric, a compliance tag.

Google rating

What it is. The office's average star rating on its connected Google Business Profile, on the usual 1.0 to 5.0 scale, shown to one decimal place (for example "4.3"). When no Google rating is on file, the tile shows a plain dash in place of a number.

What you see. Below the rating, once the peer cohort qualifies, a line reads the peer median for the active scope, formatted the same way ("Median 4.1"), with the office's percentile appended when one is available ("Median 4.1 · p68"). Below that, a delta line reads the office's rating against that median as a percentage ("+7% vs median" or "-5% vs median"), or "On par with peers" in neutral gray when the gap is under five percent either way. Because rating is a higher-is-better metric, a positive delta shows green and a negative one shows red or amber depending on how far off the median it sits.

Google reviews

What it is. The total number of reviews behind that Google rating, as a plain count (for example "212"). This is the volume side of the same platform the rating tile reads.

What you see. The office's own review count in large type, a peer median line once the cohort qualifies ("Median 140"), shown as a plain integer with no percentile-style rounding or comma formatting, and a delta line against that median using the same percentage math as every other tile in this drill-in. Google reviews is also defined as a higher-is-better metric: more reviews reads as a stronger, more credible signal, not as noise to discount. See "Why review count is a credibility signal," below.

Yelp rating

What it is. The office's average star rating on its connected Yelp listing, same 1.0 to 5.0 scale, same one-decimal display, same plain-dash empty state as Google rating.

What you see. Identical shape to Google rating: office value, peer median with percentile, and a green or red/amber delta against that median, higher-is-better.

Yelp reviews

What it is. The total number of reviews behind the Yelp rating, the Yelp-side counterpart to Google reviews.

What you see. Identical shape to Google reviews: office count, peer median as a plain integer, and a delta against that median, also higher-is-better, for the same credibility reason.

When the peer comparison isn't available

If a tile's peer median can't be shown, the median line is replaced with one of two messages instead, and no delta or target tag renders below it:

• "Cohort too small" when the active scope is Group and your network doesn't yet have enough active franchisees reporting that metric to compare against without exposing anyone's individual number outside the aggregate.
• "Pending benchmark seed" when the active scope is Regional or National. Industry benchmarks for reputation metrics aren't seeded yet at those scopes; see Scope switcher, below.

There's a third, quieter edge case worth knowing: if the peer median for a metric works out to exactly zero (every active peer shows zero reviews on that platform, for instance) and the office you're looking at also shows zero, the tile reads "On par with peers." If the peer median is zero but the office's own count is greater than zero, no delta line renders at all, a percentage comparison against a zero baseline isn't meaningful, so the tile simply shows the office's count and the "Median 0" line with nothing scored underneath it.

Why review count is a credibility signal

It would be easy to assume a review-count tile is just there to satisfy curiosity, or worse, that more reviews somehow means more complaints. Verinode reads it the opposite way, and deliberately: Google reviews and Yelp reviews are both defined as higher-is-better metrics, the same direction as the ratings themselves.

The reasoning is about certainty, not popularity. A 4.9 average built on 6 reviews and a 4.6 average built on 400 reviews are not the same kind of number. The first could move a full point with one more bad review; the second has already absorbed hundreds of customer experiences and settled where it is. Review count is the sample size behind the rating, and a rating without a sample size attached is a much weaker read on how an office is actually doing in front of customers. That's why Verinode treats a low review count on an otherwise-strong rating as a thinner, less certain signal worth a second look, not a black mark, and why a high review count is scored favorably in its own right rather than being folded silently into the rating tile and left invisible.

This is also why review count gets its own peer comparison instead of being dropped from the drill-in as a "secondary" number. An office sitting at the peer median on rating but well below median on review count is a genuinely different situation from an office that's below median on both, and the two separate tiles let you tell them apart at a glance.

Target compliance tags

Where your network has an active program with a target set on one of these four metrics, a tag appears beneath its delta line: "✓ Meets target" in green when the office is at or above the target, or "✗ Below target" in amber-red when it isn't, with the target figure shown in parentheses (for example "(target 4.5)" for a rating, or "(target 150)" for a review count). Hovering the tag shows which program set that target. No tag appears for a metric that has no active target, and no tag appears when the tile's own peer comparison is unavailable.

Scope switcher

The same Group / Regional / National switcher sits above both the Composite reputation and Per platform sections, and it controls all four tiles in this section together.

• Group compares the office against other active franchisees in your own network. It becomes available once enough active offices are reporting reputation data to compare against without exposing anyone's individual number outside the aggregate; the exact count needed isn't shown, the same cohort-privacy floor used everywhere else in HQ. Below that line, the switcher marks Group as unavailable and explains that more active peers are needed.
• Regional and National are visible in the switcher today but not yet turned on for reputation metrics. Selecting either one shows "Industry benchmarks not yet seeded for reputation metrics. Coming in the next slice." in the footer line under the tiles, and every tile in Per platform falls back to "Pending benchmark seed."

A footer sentence under the tiles confirms which scope you're reading and its confidence tier ("Within-network comparison · Directional · n=14," for example), or, when the cohort doesn't qualify, explains that the peer cohort is too small without stating the specific floor.

How to use this section

Read rating and review count together, not the rating alone. An office at or above the peer median on both tiles for a platform is a genuinely strong, well-supported position. An office with a strong rating but a weak review-count delta is worth a nudge toward asking more customers to leave a review, the rating itself may not be as stable as it looks once more customers weigh in. An office weak on both is the clearer conversation: not just a standing problem, but one without much of a customer voice behind it either way.

Compare Google against Yelp for the same office, too. A gap between the two, strong on one platform and weak on the other, usually points to where the office's follow-up process is (or isn't) asking happy customers to leave a review, rather than to a real difference in the customer experience itself.

Related reading

• Reputation: network review health at a glance, for the network hero, the four franchisee rows, and the full drill-in this section lives inside
• Composite score and BBB rating in the office detail, for the blended score this section's ratings feed into, the BBB tile, and the full direction-of-good table across the whole drill-in
• Reputation Watch and Top Reputation, for how composite standing is used to flag members on the Compliance page
• Network health, for the aggregates-only privacy doctrine that governs every HQ surface
• HQ programs, for how a network target gets set on a metric like Google rating or Yelp reviews in the first place

Data sources