The kitchen is not the problem — across the sources read this fortnight the food is praised in fifty-one of sixty-two reviews, and named as the reason people returned in nineteen. What is costing you sits either side of the meal: the booking page asks for a card without saying why, three reviews since June describe being charged for a table they cancelled, and nobody has answered a review since March. The card wording is the one to fix this week — it is the only complaint that reaches people before they have eaten anything.
4 of 5 findings about booking and delivery were negative (80%), on Google, OpenTable, The county guide. Separate groups of customers reached the same complaint independently, which is why this outranks a louder one on a single site.
Read the 4 complaints quoted above in full and find what they have in common — it is usually one step, and usually not the one being complained about. Change that step, then reply to each review in public saying you did.
2 of 4 findings about staff were negative (50%), on Google, OpenTable. Separate groups of customers reached the same complaint independently, which is why this outranks a louder one on a single site.
Read the 2 complaints quoted above in full and find what they have in common — it is usually one step, and usually not the one being complained about. Change that step, then reply to each review in public saying you did.
Put on the same five-point scale, Google reads 4.6 and OpenTable reads 3.1 — a gap of 1.5. Two platforms that far apart are two different groups of customers having two different visits.
Read OpenTable as though it were a different business, because to the people writing there it is. What they expected is the thing to find out.
We looked for you on Better Business Bureau, DoorDash, Resy, Tripadvisor and found nothing. Each is a place people look up a business like yours, and on each of them there is nothing of you to read.
Claiming a listing is free and takes about ten minutes each. Start with whichever one your competitors are already on — that is the one with an audience already reading it.
4 of 5 findings about food quality were positive (80%), the highest of anything customers mentioned.
Two uses. It is the line to put in your own marketing, in customers' words rather than yours. And it is the thing to check first before any cost decision — this is what people are actually coming back for.
Every statement in this report is numbered to the page it came from, listed in full at the end with the date it was read. Nothing here is estimated, inferred from an industry average, or carried over from a previous issue.
| Platform | Score | Reviews | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Google[1] | 4.6 out of 5 | 62 | 2026-08 |
| Locals, mostly repeat, and almost entirely about the food. | |||
| OpenTable[2] | 3.1 out of 5 | 24 | 2026-08 |
| Diners who booked online. Every one of the deposit complaints is here and nowhere else. | |||
| The county guide[3] | 8.4 out of 10 | 31 | 2026-07 |
| Visitors rather than regulars; service pace comes up twice. | |||
| What it is about | Findings | Negative | Share | Seen on | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Booking and deliverylow | 5 | 4 | 80% | Google, OpenTable, The county guide | |
| Stafflow | 4 | 2 | 50% | Google, OpenTable | |
| Service speedlow | 2 | 2 | 100% | OpenTable, The county guide | |
| Food qualitylow | 5 | 1 | 20% | Google, OpenTable, The county guide | |
| Value and pricinglow | 1 | 0 | 0% |
Every number in this table is a count of individual findings, each one carrying the page it came from. Confidence is the size of the evidence behind the row, not our opinion of it: high is 20 findings or more, medium is 6, low is fewer and should be read as a signal to watch rather than a conclusion.
These are not one unhappy week on one site. The same problem reached several audiences that do not talk to each other.
Measured against the last issue, aspect by aspect. Only movements of ten points or more are shown, and only where both issues had enough findings to compare.
they took 20 off me for a table I cancelled two days before, no one mentioned that when I booked[2]
asked for my card just to reserve - felt like a trap[2]
charged a no-show fee when we did turn up, took three emails[1]
Rated 5 of 5 because 4 negative findings; on 3 separate platforms, independently; 4 of them in the last 180 days.
shame no one from the restaurant ever responds[1]
left a review about a real problem in April, still nothing[2]
Rated 3 of 5 because 2 negative findings; on 2 separate platforms, independently; 2 of them in the last 180 days; thin evidence, so held back.
an hour between courses on a Tuesday with half the room empty[3]
waited 25 minutes to order[2]
Rated 3 of 5 because 2 negative findings; on 2 separate platforms, independently; 2 of them in the last 180 days; thin evidence, so held back.
the fish was cold by the time it reached us[2]
Rated 3 of 5 because 1 negative finding; 1 of them in the last 180 days; thin evidence, so held back.
4 of 5 findings about this were positive (80%), across Google, OpenTable, The county guide.
best short rib in the county, and I have looked[1]
the short rib is worth the drive on its own[1]
food was faultless, every course[2]
the waiter remembered us from last year[1]
kitchen is doing serious work for a room this size[3]
front of house could not have been kinder about the allergy[1]
the deposit terms are not on the booking page anywhere[3]
worth every penny[1]
easy to book online, table was ready[1]
Spread across 3 platforms, with no single one carrying more than 47% of it. That is the healthy shape — no one listing can take your reputation with it.
Counted from 17 findings across 4 pages we read this fortnight.
Searching your own name from your own street returns the guide listing above your website.[3] Your site is fourth; the two results above it are pages you do not control.
We checked 9 places this kind of business is discussed. 4 of them have nothing on you — each one is somewhere a customer looked and found a competitor instead.