Methodology
Version 0.1.1, updated 12 November 2026. Every number on this page is read from the same configuration that computes the scores.
What is measured
This index scores publicly verifiable facts about a practice: how open it is about who works there, what it does and what it charges; what its public review signals look like; which services and facilities it documents; how easy it is to reach; and how findable its own information is.
It does not measure clinical quality, outcomes or the skill of any practitioner. A high score is not a recommendation. A low score usually means the practice publishes less, not that it provides poor care.
Which practices are included
A practice is included when all of these are true:
- It offers the profession to the public from a physical location inside the city boundary.
- That location has a public Google Maps listing that is not marked permanently closed.
- At least one practitioner of the profession can be associated with it from public sources, or the listing's primary category is the profession.
There is no minimum number of reviews. There is one record for each practice location. A practice is ranked only once every criterion has been attempted. A practice with no website and no reviews is still ranked; it scores low, and its page says that this reflects how little is published. Listing is free, and no practice can pay to be added, removed or moved.
Fact states
Every criterion rests on a fact with one of four states. Each Yes, No or Partial carries a source, a check date and a short evidence note.
| State | Meaning | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | Verified from a cited public source. | Full points |
| Partial | Verified in part. The evidence note says which part. | 50% of the points |
| No | Verified absent: we looked in the defined places and it is not there. | None |
| Not verified | We could not establish it either way. It is never presented as a negative finding. | None |
Publication criteria count only when the practice itself publishes the fact: its own website, its own social profiles or its own Google Business Profile. Directories, aggregators and reviews do not count as publication by the practice.
How a score is worked out
Each category has a maximum number of points. A practice's share of the points in a category is weighted by the profile, summed, and scaled to 100. Red flag deductions are then applied, and the result is limited to between 0 and 100 and rounded to one decimal place. The overall profile uses the category maximums as weights, so the overall score is the points earned plus any deduction.
Equal scores share a rank and the next rank is skipped. Within a shared rank, practices are listed alphabetically by name.
Categories and criteria
There are 6 categories totalling 100 points.
Information Transparency: 25 points
Whether basic facts about the practice, its people, premises and services are published by the practice and verifiable.
| Criterion | Points | How it is assessed |
|---|---|---|
| Working website | 4 | The practice has its own website that loads over HTTPS and shows current information. A social profile or directory page alone does not count. |
| Practitioners named | 4 | The practice publishes the full first name and surname of the practitioners who treat patients. First names only, or surnames only, score partial. |
| Qualifications or special interests stated | 3 | Qualifications or special interests are stated for the named practitioners. |
| Registration numbers published | 3 | The practice itself publishes the statutory registration or practice number of at least one named practitioner. Partial if only a practice number is shown. |
| Registration verified on the public register | 3 | At least one named practitioner has a unique, active match on the statutory register named in the vertical config. Ambiguous or unsearched matches are unverified. |
| Real photos of premises or team | 2 | Genuine photos of the premises or team appear on the website or the practice's own listing, not only stock imagery. |
| Service list published | 3 | A concrete list of services is published by the practice itself. |
| Street address published | 2 | A full street address is published by the practice and matches a map location. |
| Consistent contact details | 1 | Name, address and phone number match between the practice website and its Google listing. |
Price Transparency: 15 points
Whether a patient can estimate costs before a visit. Ranges and from-prices count. Time-limited promotions do not.
| Criterion | Points | How it is assessed |
|---|---|---|
| Any standing price or price range published | 4 | At least one standing price, range or from-price is published by the practice. |
| Price of the standard first appointment published | 4 | The price or range for the vertical's anchor price item is published. The anchor item is defined in the vertical config, and the fact is stored under that item's ID. |
| Prices of further common items published | 3 (1 for each item) | One point for each of the three additional price items defined in the vertical config. |
| Medical aid position stated | 2 | The practice states how it relates to medical aids, for example contracted in, charges medical aid rates, or cash practice with claim-back. |
| Payment terms stated | 2 | Accepted payment methods or when payment is due are stated. |
Reputation and Reviews: 20 points
Public review signals from the practice's Google listing.
| Criterion | Points | How it is assessed |
|---|---|---|
| Google rating, adjusted for volume | 7 | Average Google rating after the Bayesian adjustment. A practice with no reviews scores 0 and is shown as having no reviews. Scored on the adjusted rating:
|
| Google review volume | 4 | Number of public Google reviews. Scored on the number of Google reviews:
|
| Review recency | 3 | Age of the newest public review at the check date. Unknown scores 0. Scored on the age of the newest review:
|
| Practice responds to reviews | 2 | The owner replies to reviews in the defined sample, including critical ones where any exist. Unverified below 5 reviews. |
| No recurring complaint pattern | 2 | Yes when the defined sample shows no repeated complaint. No only when the same specific complaint comes from at least 3 different reviewers in the last 3 years. Unverified below 5 reviews. |
| No signs of review manipulation | 2 | Yes when the defined sample shows no indicators. No only with at least two independent indicators. Unverified below 5 reviews. |
Services and Facilities: 15 points
The range of services and facilities the practice documents. This measures what is documented, not how well it is done.
These criteria differ by type of practice. See the criteria for dentists, physiotherapists, optometrists and chiropractors.
Access and Communication: 15 points
How easy it is to find out when the practice is open, reach it and book.
| Criterion | Points | How it is assessed |
|---|---|---|
| Opening hours published | 2 | Opening hours are published by the practice and agree between its website and Google listing. Partial if published in one place only or the two disagree. |
| Extended hours | 2 | Open before 08:00, after 17:00 or at weekends on a regular basis, as published. |
| Online booking | 3 | A patient can pick a date and time online. A contact form that only takes a message scores partial. |
| Messaging channel | 2 | The practice publishes a WhatsApp or similar messaging contact. |
| Email address or contact form | 1 | An email address or working contact form is published. |
| Premises access information | 2 | The practice states wheelchair or step-free access, or parking arrangements. One of the two scores partial. |
| After-hours or urgent instructions | 1 | The practice says what to do when it is closed or in an urgent case. |
| Languages stated | 2 | The practice states which languages its practitioners or staff speak. |
Search and Machine Readability: 10 points
Whether the practice's own information can be found and read by search engines and other software. Deterministic checks only in this version.
| Criterion | Points | How it is assessed |
|---|---|---|
| Structured data on website | 2 | The website carries schema.org markup of a business or medical organisation type with name and address. Markup of an unrelated type scores partial. |
| Dedicated service pages | 2 | Key services have their own pages rather than a single list. |
| Own site found for its name | 2 | A web search for the practice name plus suburb lists the practice's own website in the first five organic results. Positions six to ten score partial. |
| Google Business Profile claimed | 2 | The Google listing shows signs of owner management: no claim prompt, and owner replies or owner-published details. |
| Mobile-usable and secure | 2 | The website has a viewport meta tag, is readable at 360 pixels wide without horizontal scrolling, and serves HTTPS without certificate errors. |
Review signals
Because there is no minimum review count, a raw star rating would let a perfect score from two reviews outrank a very good one from hundreds. The Google rating is adjusted before it earns points:
adjusted = (rating × count + 4 × 25) / (count + 25)
For example, 5.0 stars from 3 reviews adjusts to 4.11, and 4.8 stars from 500 reviews adjusts to 4.76. A practice with no reviews has no rating and earns no rating points.
The judgement criteria (responds to reviews, no recurring complaint pattern, no signs of manipulation) are assessed on a defined sample: the 20 newest reviews and the 20 lowest-rated reviews, or all reviews if there are fewer than 40. With fewer than 5 reviews all three are not verified. A recurring complaint needs the same specific complaint from at least 3 different reviewers within the last 3 years. Signs of manipulation need at least two independent indicators; a high rating alone is never an indicator. Review evidence is recorded as counts, dates and paraphrased themes. No reviewer is named, and no review is quoted at more than 15 words.
Register verification
Each practitioner a practice names is checked against the statutory register for the profession. A match is unique when the registration number published by the practice matches, or when the full first name and surname match exactly one register entry. More than one plausible match is recorded as ambiguous and treated as not verified. A status other than active is recorded only on a registration number match, or an unambiguous full-name match with a second corroborating detail, and only after a person has reviewed it.
Red flags
Red flags subtract points, to a total of no more than 15. Every flag needs cited public evidence and approval by a person. No flag is ever derived from missing data. Not publishing prices is not a flag; it already costs points.
| Flag | Points deducted by severity | When it applies |
|---|---|---|
| Misleading or unverifiable claims | Low -2, Medium -4, High -6 | The practice's own channels make guaranteed-outcome claims, unverifiable superlatives, or claims to treat conditions outside the profession's scope. |
| Recurring billing complaints | Low -2, Medium -4, High -6 | At least 3 different reviewers in the last 3 years describe bills materially above what was quoted or charges for services not provided. |
| Review manipulation | Low -3, Medium -5, High -8 | At least two independent indicators of manipulated reviews in the defined sample. |
| No verifiable address | Low -3, Medium -5 | No consistent physical address can be verified from any public source. |
| Contradictory public information | Low -1, Medium -3, High -5 | Key facts contradict each other across the practice's own channels. |
| Recurring communication complaints | Low -1, Medium -3, High -5 | At least 3 different reviewers in the last 3 years describe unanswered messages or cancelled appointments without notice. |
| Practitioner register status not active | High -10 | A named practitioner is matched to the statutory register by registration number, or by unambiguous full name plus a second corroborating detail, and the register shows a status other than active. |
Profiles
A profile reweights the categories for a particular need, using the same recorded facts. A practice is not ranked in a profile when a criterion that the profile requires is recorded as No or Not verified. A view for a profile has its own page only where at least 5 practices are ranked in it. The profiles for each type of practice are on its criteria page.
Independence
- No practice has paid or can pay to appear, to be removed, or to change a score.
- No adverts, referral fees, commissions or paid services of any kind are connected to the index.
- Scores change only when the underlying public data changes or the published methodology changes. Both are logged in the changelog.
- Anyone can report an error. Corrections are checked against a public source and applied with a public history entry. See corrections and about this index.
Versions
The methodology is versioned. A patch version clarifies wording and cannot change a score. A minor version changes a rule or criterion and some scores. A major version changes categories or weights. The current version is 0.1.1.
Version history
| Version | Date | What changed | Why | Practices affected |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1.1 | 12 November 2026 | Added this version history, so that what changed, why, and which practices are affected is recorded for every methodology version and published on the methodology and changelog pages. Only descriptive text is added. No criterion, point value, tier, weight, red flag or rule is changed. | Every methodology version is meant to carry a published note, and the configuration had nowhere to record one. | None. No score can change. |
| 0.1.0 | 10 November 2026 | First draft of the methodology: six categories totalling 100 points, the four fact states, the adjustment of Google ratings for review volume, the review sampling rules, register verification, red flags and profiles. | Initial version, written before any practice was researched. | None. No practice had been published. |
The same entries appear in the changelog.