Mark a survey and Inform Staff

Peer Review:
5.45.80.218:valid:Content Nonsensical, Duplicate Survey, High Vulgarity, High Grammatical Error, Probably Admissions, Content Useless, Malicious Intent/Faked, SPAM, :1
5.45.80.218:valid:Content Nonsensical, Duplicate Survey, High Vulgarity, High Grammati

Statistical Analyzer:

Thank you for sharing a very snaumlititg set of data. Trying to piece together reasons why the Hilton Seattle Hotel (Number 6 with a 320 sum, .4 mile proximity, and an avg 3 star rating) and the Grand Hyatt Seattle (Number 12 with a 1201 sum, .6 mile proximity, and an avg 4.5 star rating) have such a disparity in ranking is a great exercise. I've been scribbling on printed versions of your data for the last few hours looking hard at what appears to be inexplicable differences in ranking in some cases. I had no luck explaining some of ranking differences (6 and 12, 5 and 7, and others) with citation sums, proximity to centroid, or review star averages.After that, my knee jerk theory was that it might be on page differences. Perhaps somewhere in the sites I could find similarities in titles (length, content, etc) or other local theming factors (Pikes Marketplace and other local attractions). I looked for trends between on page content with listings that appear to get an unknown bonus (Hilton, Best Western) while others appear to get an unknown penalty (Renaissance and Grand Hyatt).I know it sounds arrogant. I know I'm probably not going to glance at the content, measure a few visible factors and hit the lottery. It was a fun exercise though.Lot's of theories are scratched off the list. Of course, Dave points out probably one of the most important factors that skew the assumptions Google only shows us a percentage of citations. Perhaps getting a more accurate gauge of what they really are and writing a program to scrape and score those citations might be an answer.In any case, thank you for the exercise it is very thought provoking and I greatly appreciate it (RT's are imminent).