Source Consensus
How many independent, attributable sources agree.
- Strong +0.15
- Moderate +0.05
- Limited −0.15
Forkin methodology · version 1.0
Our proprietary scoring algorithm — transparent, unbiased, evidence-based.
01 / The premise
The Forkin Score is a 0–10 desk-evidence calibration, not a personal dining opinion or a crowd-rating average. It is built entirely from published, independent and attributable food journalism, then rounded to one decimal place.
We begin each calculation within its assigned evidence band, assess the quality and shape of the supporting evidence, and keep the final result within that band. The score is designed to make our evidence legible — not to impersonate a universal truth about a meal.
02 / The calculation
Start with the editorial band’s base score, apply five deliberately small evidence adjustments, then clamp the result to that band. No single factor can move a venue into another tier.
How many independent, attributable sources agree.
How current the published assessment or verification is.
Concrete dish and experience signals, rather than generic praise.
The editorial standing of the publication providing the evidence.
The degree of agreement across the attributable sources.
Base band score + evidence adjustments → band clamp → rounded to one decimal place
03 / Reading the result
8.5–9.5
Exceptional — strong independent consensus.
7.0–8.4
Solid — positive independent coverage.
5.5–6.9
Divisive — conflicting signals from sources.
—
Insufficient independent evidence to score.
04 / The boundary
05 / The promise
The numeric score is calculated independently from editorial stamp copy, even where the two may naturally correlate; its evidence band is a published safeguard, not a paid placement. No venue can pay for a higher score, and no Google data is used. Every source used is attributable and disclosed.
Where independent evidence is not sufficient, we show Unrated rather than invent precision.