How the Listing Score works

The Listing Score rates how truthfully and completely your hotel is listed where guests book.

Guest ratings tell you whether people enjoyed the stay. The Listing Score tells you whether the listing told them the truth before they booked.

It is not a hotel rating and not a guest review score. It is not a rate-parity measure: content parity compares what your listings say about the hotel. Rates are not compared. It is not the OTAs’ own content score, and it is not a revenue forecast. Competitor scores are as read for your competitive set: the same rules, the same check, from each hotel’s own listings.

The score is 50% content parity, 30% key details and 20% gallery, out of 100. The weights are fixed: a component we cannot measure is never dropped with the others reweighted; the hotel is not rated instead. The score is computed exactly and rounded once, half up.

Content parity: Do your listings tell guests the same thing about your hotel? (Rates are not compared.) It starts at 100 and loses a penalty for each detail your listings disagree on, by how much the detail matters to a guest — importance (1–4). Adding details that agree never raises it.

Key details: Do the channels guests book on carry the details guests book on? It covers fees, parking, pets, check-in and check-out, wifi, pool, spa, fitness centre, restaurant, bar, family facilities (cots, extra beds, connecting rooms), beach access and key experiences, on the channels that can carry each one. Check-in and check-out times, parking, pets and Wi-Fi are expected everywhere they can be shown; the rest only where you say you have them. An explicit “no” counts as carried; a free charge creates nothing to carry. It does not cover room-level content.

Gallery: Does each gallery sell the hotel? On each channel: the gallery’s size (full marks at 20 photos, from a real count only — a sampled “at least” count is not scored), what the first photos show against a fixed list (exterior, rooms, pool (if you have one), spa (if you have one), restaurant (if you have one), beach (if you are on or across from it)), and a main photo that is not a bed or a bathroom (unless your own website leads with one).

Your website, wherever it states the detail: it is your own word to direct bookers. A channel that disagrees with it is the one to correct, and the score never asks you to change your website to match an OTA.

Where your website says nothing, nobody is the reference: the detail loses the share of listings outside the largest group that all agree with each other.

A detail counts as read on a channel when the page was collected, our reader read it, and the part of the page that carries the detail was there.

A channel we could not read never costs points. Its last good reading is carried forward, dated, for up to 2 checks. After that the hotel is not rated, and the last score is held and shown as not updated, rather than re-scored on less.

When the only version of a listing we can reach does not include a detail at all — Expedia, for a hotel its search does not show, gives no check-in times or gallery — that detail is not expected on that channel, and your receipt says so.

A score needs all three components, at least 5 details, evidence worth 40 importance points, and 3 sources read.

The cut-offs are provisional until they are calibrated on real checks.

While any importance-4 detail disagrees, the tier is capped at Good listing. When one changed detail could move the listing two tiers, the tier is shown as pending until the next check. The number always shows the latest check; the tier changes only after 2 checks in a row in the new tier.

The headline is your latest scheduled check, your first check, or a manual check made at least 7 days after the current headline. Other manual checks are shown as your latest check, below it.

For your own hotel only, from scheduled checks run live; manual checks and recalculated history never count, so it needs weekly checks.

Earned with at least 4 checks in 28 days, every one rated and read in full on the same channels (at least 2), with a score of 80 or more, content parity of 95 or more and no importance-4 disagreement.

Kept at 80 or more with content parity of 90 or more. A check that could not read everything holds it for up to 2 checks in a row; an importance-4 disagreement removes it only after 2 checks running.

Hotel Aurora (illustrative, not a real hotel)

Content parity 77.7: Expedia’s parking fee (€25) disagrees with the website (€30), an importance-4 detail: −15. Expedia’s room count (−2), Google’s fitness centre (−4), and one channel of three on the bar (−1.3).

Key details 86.1: the spa is missing on Expedia and Google, the restaurant on Expedia, and the key experiences are partly shown.

Gallery 76.0: Expedia shows 14 photos, leads with a bed, and its first photos miss the exterior, spa and restaurant.

The parking fee caps the tier at Good listing until it is fixed. Fixing the top three issues together takes the score to 92.

No model decides anything. A model reads each page into typed answers, each with a quote that must be on the page; code decides what agrees, deterministically.

A channel we could not read never costs points. Guest reviews and the answers you give us about your hotel are not in the score: guest ratings are shown beside it, and discrepancies against your answers are on your Discrepancies page.

v1-provisional (from 2026-09-23): Four pillars (integrity, completeness, reputation, content), renormalised over what could be measured.

v2.0 (from 2026-10-16): Content parity, key details and gallery at fixed weights; guest ratings shown beside the score, not in it.

If we read a listing wrongly, tell us from your account, naming the check and the detail. A corrected reading re-analyses that check and adds a new, superseding score; the old one is kept, never edited.