Service Quality, Guest Experience and Reputation

Introduction

Accommodation operations are judged not only by whether a room is clean, available and technically functional, but also by how the guest feels throughout the service encounter and what the guest communicates afterwards. A hotel may deliver the physical product correctly and still lose loyalty because of indifferent communication, slow recovery, confusing procedures or an online reputation that signals inconsistent performance.

Service quality, guest experience and reputation are therefore interconnected managerial concerns. Service quality concerns the guest’s evaluation of performance against expectations. Guest experience encompasses the complete cognitive, emotional, sensory and relational response to interactions with the property. Reputation is the accumulated public perception formed through direct experience, word of mouth, digital reviews, media, brand communication and the organisation’s responses to criticism.

For accommodation managers, the practical challenge is to convert these broad concepts into operating standards, measurement systems and improvement actions. This requires the integration of brand standards, service audits, mystery reviews, voice-of-customer systems, complaint analysis, sentiment interpretation, service recovery and continuous improvement.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, the learner should be able to:

1. Distinguish service quality, guest satisfaction, guest experience, loyalty and reputation.
2. Apply service-quality models, brand standards, audits and mystery reviews.
3. Design a balanced voice-of-customer system using structured and unstructured data.
4. Interpret satisfaction, loyalty, complaint, review and sentiment measures.
5. Conduct root-cause analysis and prioritise improvement actions.
6. Design ethical and financially sensible service-recovery responses.
7. Manage online reputation while protecting privacy, fairness and brand credibility.

1. The Nature of Quality in Accommodation Operations

A hotel service is simultaneously a product, a process and an experience. The room is partly tangible; reservation, arrival, housekeeping coordination and departure are processes; welcome, confidence, comfort and recognition are experiential outcomes. The guest commonly evaluates all three together.

Service quality, satisfaction and experience

Service quality is generally a relatively enduring evaluation of how well a service performs on dimensions such as reliability, responsiveness and assurance. Satisfaction is a more immediate judgement concerning whether a particular encounter met or exceeded expectations. Experience is broader: it includes the guest’s complete journey before, during and after the stay, including digital discovery, booking, transportation, arrival, accommodation, food and beverage, problem resolution and post-stay communication.

These concepts should not be treated as synonyms. A guest may be satisfied with a particular room but hold a lower opinion of the brand because the booking process was difficult. Conversely, an isolated failure may be forgiven when the overall relationship and recovery experience are strong.

The expectation–disconfirmation perspective explains satisfaction as an evaluation of perceived performance relative to expectations. If performance exceeds expectations, positive disconfirmation may occur; if it falls below expectations, negative disconfirmation is likely. Expectations are shaped by price, brand promises, advertising, prior stays, reviews, cultural norms, urgency and the purpose of travel. A luxury property is therefore evaluated against a different reference point from a limited-service property.

A manager must avoid assuming that “exceeding expectations” means adding unnecessary amenities. Often it means delivering the promised service reliably, reducing uncertainty and responding intelligently when circumstances change.

Dimensions of service quality

A widely used framework identifies five dimensions:

The dimensions are diagnostic rather than a universal law. Their relative importance varies by segment, stay purpose and failure type. For a business traveller, reliable Wi-Fi and speedy billing may dominate; for a leisure guest, atmosphere and emotional welcome may be more influential.

2. Models for Analysing Service Quality

The gap model

The service-quality gap model presents quality failure as a possible mismatch between several organisational understandings and the guest’s actual experience. Important gaps include:

• Knowledge gap: management does not accurately understand guest expectations.
• Design gap: expectations are known but not translated into suitable standards or processes.
• Delivery gap: employees cannot or do not deliver the designed standard.
• Communication gap: marketing promises exceed operational capability.
• Perception gap: the guest’s interpretation differs from management’s assumption about performance.

The model is useful because it prevents managers from treating every complaint as an employee-attitude problem. A repeated failure to provide early check-in, for example, may result from unrealistic sales promises, inadequate forecasting, poor room-status controls or insufficient authority at the front desk.

SERVQUAL and expectation–perception measurement

SERVQUAL-style measurement compares a guest’s perception of performance with the guest’s expectation. A simple item-level gap can be expressed as:

where G_i is the gap for item i, P_i is perceived performance and E_i is expectation, normally measured on the same scale. A negative value indicates that perceived performance is below expectation; a positive value indicates that it exceeds expectation.

The formula assumes that expectation and performance scores use comparable scales and that the items have been worded consistently. It is a diagnostic index, not a direct measure of financial value or causation. Managers should examine distributions and comments rather than relying only on an average gap. Expectations can also be unstable and may be influenced by the survey itself.

Customer journey and touchpoint analysis

A journey map follows the guest across stages and identifies goals, emotions, contact points, backstage processes, failure points and recovery opportunities. Typical stages include discovery, booking, pre-arrival, arrival, stay, departure and post-stay engagement. Journey mapping is especially valuable because the most frustrating moment may occur outside the department that receives the complaint. For example, a housekeeping issue can originate in a defective maintenance process, while a front-office queue can originate in group-arrival planning.

Kano-style classification

The Kano perspective distinguishes basic attributes, performance attributes and attractive attributes. A clean room is often a basic requirement: its absence creates strong dissatisfaction, while its presence may not create equivalent delight. Faster service may function as a performance attribute, where better performance generally improves satisfaction. A surprise upgrade or personalised local recommendation may be an attractive attribute for some guests, although it cannot compensate for failures in basic requirements.

This classification helps managers allocate resources. Delight initiatives should not be funded at the expense of hygiene, safety, accuracy or reliability.

3. Translating Brand Promise into Operating Standards

A brand promise is meaningful only when it is translated into observable behaviours and controllable process requirements. “Warm hospitality” is too vague to audit. A usable standard might specify that the arriving guest is acknowledged promptly, addressed respectfully where the name is known, given an accurate explanation of the check-in process and offered assistance appropriate to the guest’s circumstances.

Effective standards have five characteristics:

1. They express the intended guest outcome.
2. They identify observable employee or process behaviour.
3. They specify boundaries without eliminating judgement.
4. They are compatible with law, safety and accessibility requirements.
5. They can be coached and measured reliably.

Standards should distinguish non-negotiable controls from flexible service principles. Safety, payment security, privacy, allergen communication and room-cleanliness requirements require strict control. Greeting language, recovery gestures and local recommendations may allow greater personalisation.

A standards architecture commonly includes policy, standard operating procedure, service sequence, escalation rule, evidence and audit frequency. For example, a room-readiness standard may define inspection criteria, responsible roles, system status codes, release authority and an escalation procedure for defects.

4. Audits, Quality Assurance and Mystery Reviews

Internal service audits

An audit is a systematic examination of whether specified requirements are being met. In accommodation operations, audits may cover room condition, public areas, reservation accuracy, response times, safety controls, billing, accessibility and complaint closure.

A sound audit programme should define the population or area being examined, sampling method, criteria, evidence required, scoring rules, auditor competence, reporting process and follow-up date. Auditors should record factual observations rather than personality judgements. “Staff were unprofessional” is weak evidence; “the guest waited eight minutes without acknowledgement while two agents discussed a non-urgent matter” is more actionable.

A simple compliance rate can be calculated as:

where C is the compliance percentage, N_c is the number of compliant observations and N_a is the total valid observations. The measure assumes that all observations have the same weighting. If a critical safety criterion is weighted equally with a minor presentation criterion, the result may conceal serious risk; therefore critical failures should be reported separately.

Mystery reviews

A mystery review uses a trained evaluator who behaves as an ordinary guest while assessing predefined elements. It is useful for testing the lived service sequence, brand consistency, sales behaviours, telephone handling and recovery capability.

Mystery reviews have limitations. A single visit may not represent normal performance; the evaluator may be unusually observant; and employees may feel surveilled if the programme is punitive. Ethical programmes communicate purpose, protect personal dignity, use transparent criteria, avoid discriminatory scenarios and combine mystery evidence with coaching, guest feedback and operational data.

Auditing versus improvement

An audit identifies conformity or nonconformity; it does not by itself improve performance. Improvement requires interpretation, ownership, root-cause analysis, resources, implementation and verification. A property with excellent audit scores may still have poor reputation if its criteria are incomplete or if staff optimise for the checklist rather than the guest outcome.

5. Voice of the Customer

Voice of customer (VoC) is the systematic collection and use of guest needs, perceptions and experiences. It should combine multiple channels because each provides a partial view.

VoC design begins with decisions: What must management learn? Which guest segment matters? At what journey stage? Which response will change as a result? Asking questions without assigning action creates survey fatigue and data accumulation without learning.

A survey should use clear, neutral questions, avoid double-barrelled wording, distinguish “not applicable” from dissatisfaction, preserve anonymity where appropriate and collect only necessary personal information. Qualitative comments should be coded using a consistent taxonomy, such as cleanliness, sleep quality, staff interaction, food, technology, maintenance, value, accessibility and recovery.

Satisfaction and loyalty measures

A common customer satisfaction score is the proportion of respondents selecting satisfied categories:

where N_s is the number of valid respondents selecting the organisation’s defined satisfied categories and N_r is the number of valid responses to the item. The organisation must state whether “satisfied” means the top category, top two categories or another rule. CSAT is sensitive to question wording and timing.

The Net Promoter Score uses responses to a recommendation question. Respondents are classified as promoters, passives or detractors. The score is:

The result ranges from −100 to +100 percentage points. Passives are included in the denominator but do not directly enter the subtraction. NPS is a relationship or advocacy indicator, not a complete measure of service quality, profitability or loyalty. It should not be used to suppress criticism or as the sole basis for employee evaluation.

Repeat-stay rate, direct-booking share, retention, complaint recurrence and referral behaviour can complement survey measures. Managers should examine segment, channel, season and journey-stage differences, because an aggregate score may hide a serious issue affecting a small but strategically important segment.

Sentiment analysis

Sentiment analysis classifies text as positive, negative, neutral or more nuanced emotional categories. Automated systems can process volume, identify recurring terms and detect sudden changes. However, hospitality language is context dependent. “The room was sick” may be positive slang in one context and a health complaint in another. Sarcasm, multilingual expression, short reviews and mixed sentiment can reduce accuracy.

AI-assisted analysis should therefore be treated as decision support. Human reviewers should validate samples, monitor false positives and negatives, protect personal data, document model limitations and ensure that action is not taken against a guest merely because an algorithm labels a comment negatively.

6. Complaint Analysis and Service Recovery

A complaint is both a failure signal and an opportunity to restore trust. Guests judge recovery through outcomes and procedural fairness: Was the organisation responsive? Was the explanation credible? Was the solution proportionate? Did the employee show respect? Was the guest required to repeat the story unnecessarily?

A practical recovery sequence is:

1. Listen without premature defensiveness.
2. Acknowledge the impact and apologise where the hotel is responsible.
3. Clarify the facts and the guest’s desired outcome.
4. Take immediate action within authorised limits.
5. Explain timing, ownership and next communication.
6. Follow up and confirm closure.
7. Record the incident and address its cause.

Recovery should not become automatic compensation. An apology, correction, room move, fee reversal, amenity or other remedy should reflect severity, responsibility, inconvenience, guest vulnerability, recurrence and the value of restoring confidence. Excessive compensation can create inequity and encourage opportunistic claims; insufficient authority can make employees slow and powerless.

A useful recovery policy gives employees decision rights, escalation thresholds and documentation requirements. It also distinguishes service failure from misconduct, safety events, discrimination, privacy breaches and emergencies, which require specialist escalation and possibly regulatory reporting.

7. Root-Cause Analysis and Continuous Improvement

Treating symptoms repeatedly is expensive. Root-cause analysis asks why the failure occurred and why the system allowed it to continue. Common tools include the five whys, fishbone diagrams, Pareto analysis, process mapping and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA).

The five whys is most effective when each answer is evidence based. “Why was the room not ready?” may lead from delayed cleaning to inaccurate status communication, then to a system-design problem or staffing mismatch. The method should not be used mechanically or to assign blame to the first employee involved.

A fishbone analysis groups possible causes under categories such as people, process, technology, materials, environment, measurement and management. Pareto analysis helps prioritise frequent or costly categories, but frequency alone is insufficient: a rare safety failure may deserve immediate attention.

FMEA evaluates potential failure modes using severity, occurrence and detectability ratings. A traditional risk-priority number may be calculated as:

where S, O and D are ordinal ratings for severity, occurrence and detectability. The calculation assumes that the scales are defined consistently and that multiplication is an acceptable prioritisation method. Because ordinal ratings do not guarantee equal intervals, RPN should not be treated as a precise probability or financial risk. High-severity failures should be escalated even when their RPN is modest.

Continuous improvement follows a cycle of defining the problem, measuring the current condition, analysing causes, implementing change, checking results and standardising successful practice. The PDCA cycle—plan, do, check, act—supports controlled learning. A change should have an owner, deadline, expected outcome, baseline, monitoring method and decision rule.

8. Reputation and Online Review Management

Reputation is formed through accumulated signals. A single review may attract attention, but repeated themes establish expectations for future guests. Reputation management therefore begins with operational truth: the strongest long-term strategy is to deliver a credible experience consistently.

A review-response policy should specify response time targets, approval authority, tone, escalation triggers, privacy rules and templates that still permit personalisation. A good response acknowledges the specific issue, avoids arguing, does not disclose personal details, explains corrective action at an appropriate level and invites private follow-up where necessary. It should not offer incentives for positive reviews, fabricate responses, post reviews on behalf of guests or reveal confidential facts to prove the hotel is right.

Managers should distinguish factual correction from public defensiveness. If a review contains a verifiable error, the hotel may state the correct policy neutrally, but should avoid humiliating the reviewer. Allegations involving health, safety, discrimination, fraud, harassment or privacy require careful escalation and documentation.

Online reputation should be monitored through thematic indicators rather than star rating alone. Useful indicators include review volume, response coverage, recurring complaint themes, sentiment by department, time to response, proportion of issues closed and recurrence after intervention. Review platforms differ in audience, algorithms and moderation rules; cross-platform comparisons require caution.

9. Integrated Performance Management

A mature quality system combines leading and lagging indicators. Lagging indicators include review rating, complaint rate, refund cost and repeat-stay behaviour. Leading indicators include training completion, preventive maintenance closure, room-inspection defects, queue monitoring, response-time adherence and unresolved service cases.

A balanced dashboard might contain:

• Guest outcomes: CSAT, recommendation score, review themes and repeat intention.
• Process reliability: room readiness, reservation accuracy, request response and complaint closure.
• People capability: coaching completion, staffing adequacy and employee voice.
• Risk and compliance: safety, privacy, accessibility and critical audit failures.
• Commercial consequences: compensation cost, cancellations, direct booking and retention.

Indicators must be interpreted together. A high satisfaction score with a very low response rate may be unreliable. A low complaint count may indicate excellent service—or that guests have stopped believing complaints will be addressed. A rising review score alongside rising compensation may signal that recovery is masking an unresolved process defect.

Applied Case: The Harbour Grand Hotel

The following is an illustrative case.

Background

The 180-room Harbour Grand serves leisure couples, small corporate groups and weekend events. Its average online rating declined from 4.4 to 3.9 over six months. The general manager initially blamed a recently introduced mobile check-in system.

Problem

The most visible complaints concerned long arrival waits, rooms not ready at the promised time, inconsistent responses to maintenance issues and generic management replies to reviews. The hotel’s overall post-stay satisfaction score remained 86%, apparently contradicting the public rating.

Analysis

A cross-functional team mapped the journey and separated data by segment and channel. The survey had a 7% response rate and was sent mainly to loyalty-programme members, whereas online reviews included many event and first-time guests. Thus the two sources represented different populations.

Complaint coding showed that 42% of arrival complaints involved group check-in periods. Process observation found that room status was updated manually and that housekeeping supervisors lacked a reliable priority list. The mobile check-in system reduced registration time but did not solve room-readiness or key-encoding bottlenecks. Review analysis also found that management replies acknowledged dissatisfaction but rarely described corrective action.

A five-whys exercise identified three root causes: inaccurate arrival forecasting, disconnected room-status communication and insufficient authority for front-desk staff to offer immediate alternatives. A separate analysis found that maintenance requests were entered into the property-management system but not prioritised by guest impact.

Approach and solution

The hotel introduced a 72-hour group-arrival control meeting, a shared room-readiness dashboard, impact-based maintenance priorities and a recovery matrix. Front-desk employees could authorise defined remedies without waiting for a manager. The hotel revised its survey to include event guests and introduced an in-stay check-in message for arrivals experiencing delay.

Review responses were rewritten to be specific, respectful and action oriented. The hotel did not attempt to remove legitimate negative reviews or incentivise positive ones. Employees received coaching in explanation, expectation setting and recovery documentation.

Outcome

After four months, the proportion of rooms unavailable at the promised check-in time fell substantially, repeated arrival complaints declined and review themes shifted from waiting and uncertainty toward positive comments about communication. The hotel’s rating improved, but management continued to monitor response bias and did not claim that the change was caused by one intervention alone.

Learning points

1. Public reputation and survey satisfaction may measure different populations.
2. Technology cannot compensate for weak process design.
3. The department receiving a complaint may not own its root cause.
4. Recovery authority should be paired with controls and learning.
5. Reputation improves when operational change is visible in the guest experience, not merely in public relations.

Challenges and Limitations

Service-quality measurement contains unavoidable subjectivity. Expectations vary across cultures, segments and circumstances. Scores can be distorted by non-response, extreme reviewers, timing, incentives and changes in survey design. Benchmarks may encourage imitation rather than understanding. Mystery reviews can produce artificial behaviour, while audits can promote checklist compliance.

Managers should also consider emotional labour and employee wellbeing. Requiring staff to display constant positivity without adequate staffing, autonomy or psychological safety can cause burnout and reduce authentic hospitality. Quality programmes should include employee voice, fair workload design and protection from abusive guest behaviour.

Privacy and data governance are essential. Guest comments, loyalty data, recordings, identities and behavioural profiles should be collected for legitimate purposes, accessed only by authorised users, retained appropriately and processed according to applicable data-protection law. Automated sentiment or propensity systems should be explainable enough for managerial oversight and should not produce discriminatory treatment.

Contemporary Developments and Best Practices

Contemporary accommodation operations increasingly use real-time messaging, integrated case management, predictive maintenance, multilingual conversational systems and automated text classification. These technologies can reduce delay and reveal patterns, but they introduce risks of surveillance, exclusion, inaccurate translation and depersonalisation. Human escalation must remain available, particularly for accessibility needs, distress, emergencies and complex complaints.

Best practice is characterised by:

• A clearly defined brand promise translated into observable standards.
• A journey-based rather than department-only view of quality.
• Triangulation of surveys, reviews, complaints, audits, staff insight and operational data.
• Segment-aware analysis and transparent measurement definitions.
• Root-cause action rather than repeated compensation.
• Empowered employees supported by training, staffing and fair policies.
• Ethical, privacy-conscious use of digital and AI tools.
• Public responses that are truthful, respectful and proportionate.
• Verification that improvements persist after initial attention declines.

Chapter Summary

Service quality is a performance evaluation, satisfaction is an encounter-based judgement, experience spans the complete guest journey and reputation is the cumulative public perception of the organisation. Accommodation managers use gap analysis, SERVQUAL-style dimensions, journey mapping and Kano-style classification to diagnose performance and prioritise requirements.

Brand standards must be observable, auditable and compatible with employee judgement. Audits and mystery reviews provide evidence but do not automatically create improvement. A strong voice-of-customer system combines surveys, complaints, interviews, reviews, social listening and employee insight while recognising bias and measurement limitations.

CSAT, NPS, compliance rates and review sentiment are useful indicators when their definitions, samples and limitations are understood. Complaint handling requires listening, acknowledgement, action, communication, follow-up and learning. Root-cause tools such as five whys, fishbone analysis, Pareto analysis and FMEA help move from symptoms to system improvement. Online reputation is best managed through credible operations, respectful responses, privacy protection and transparent governance. Continuous improvement depends on evidence, ownership, experimentation, verification and standardisation.

Key Terms

Service quality: The guest’s evaluation of how well service performance meets relevant expectations.

Guest satisfaction: A judgement about whether a particular experience or encounter met expectations.

Guest experience: The cognitive, emotional, sensory and relational response across the complete guest journey.

Reputation: Accumulated public perception formed through experience, communication, reviews and word of mouth.

Reliability: Ability to deliver promised service accurately and consistently.

Responsiveness: Willingness and speed in assisting the guest.

Assurance: Competence, courtesy, credibility and confidence conveyed by the organisation.

Empathy: Individualised attention and understanding of guest circumstances.

Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment, appearance and other observable elements.

Service gap: A mismatch between expectations, organisational design, delivery, communication or perception.

Brand standard: A defined requirement expressing how the brand promise should appear in operation.

Service audit: Systematic examination of compliance with specified requirements.

Mystery review: An assessment conducted by a trained evaluator posing as an ordinary guest.

Voice of customer: Systematic collection and use of guest needs, perceptions and feedback.

CSAT: Customer satisfaction measure based on a defined proportion of satisfied responses.

NPS: Difference between the percentages of promoters and detractors.

Service recovery: Actions taken to correct a failure and restore guest confidence.

Root-cause analysis: Structured investigation of underlying causes rather than symptoms.

Sentiment analysis: Classification and interpretation of emotional orientation in text or speech.

Continuous improvement: Repeated, evidence-based enhancement of processes and outcomes.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. Distinguish service quality from guest satisfaction.
2. State the five commonly used dimensions of service quality.
3. What is the purpose of a mystery review?
4. Define voice of customer and name two VoC sources.
5. Why should online review responses avoid disclosing guest details?

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain the service-quality gap model and apply it to a hotel with repeated room-readiness failures.
2. Discuss how brand standards can preserve consistency without eliminating employee judgement.
3. Compare surveys, complaints, online reviews and interviews as sources of guest insight.
4. Explain the role and limitations of CSAT and NPS in accommodation management.
5. Describe an integrated system for complaint handling, root-cause analysis and continuous improvement.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A hotel has a high CSAT score but a declining online rating. Analyse at least four possible explanations and propose a research design to investigate them.
2. A guest waits 45 minutes for a room during a group arrival, receives inconsistent explanations and posts a negative review. Design an immediate recovery response and a root-cause improvement plan.
3. Using the illustrative Harbour Grand case, identify which indicators are leading and lagging, and recommend a balanced dashboard for the next six months.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which dimension of service quality is most directly represented by accurate reservation handling and correct billing?

A. Empathy

B. Reliability

C. Tangibles

D. Assurance

Correct Answer: B. Reliability

Question 2

In the gap expression G_i = P_i − E_i, what does a negative value indicate?

A. Perceived performance is below expectation

B. Expectation is below perceived performance

C. The survey has no valid responses

D. The guest is classified as a promoter

Correct Answer: A. Perceived performance is below expectation

Question 3

Which method uses a trained evaluator posing as an ordinary guest?

A. Focus group

B. Service audit

C. Mystery review

D. Social listening

Correct Answer: C. Mystery review

Question 4

If 80 of 100 valid respondents select a hotel’s defined satisfied categories, what is CSAT?

A. 20%

B. 50%

C. 80%

D. 125%

Correct Answer: C. 80%

Question 5

How is NPS calculated?

A. Promoters plus passives

B. Percentage of promoters minus percentage of detractors

C. Average rating multiplied by response rate

D. Detractors minus passives

Correct Answer: B. Percentage of promoters minus percentage of detractors

Question 6

Which action is the strongest example of root-cause analysis?

A. Offering compensation for every complaint

B. Deleting negative reviews

C. Investigating why a repeated failure occurs in the operating system

D. Increasing the survey frequency without changing operations

Correct Answer: C. Investigating why a repeated failure occurs in the operating system

Question 7

Which statement about sentiment analysis in hospitality is most accurate?

A. It eliminates the need for human review

B. It is always reliable for sarcasm and mixed comments

C. It can identify patterns but should be treated as decision support

D. It measures service quality without sampling limitations

Correct Answer: C. It can identify patterns but should be treated as decision support

Question 8

What is the first appropriate response when a guest reports a service failure?

A. Defend the hotel’s policy immediately

B. Listen and acknowledge the impact

C. Ask the guest to post a private review

D. Transfer the guest without recording the issue

Correct Answer: B. Listen and acknowledge the impact

Question 9

In the compliance formula C = (N_c ÷ N_a) × 100%, what does N_a represent?

A. Number of complaints answered

B. Number of auditors

C. Total valid observations

D. Number of non-compliant observations only

Correct Answer: C. Total valid observations

Question 10

Why should critical safety failures be reported separately from an average audit score?

A. They are always less important than presentation issues

B. A weighted average may conceal their seriousness

C. They cannot be documented

D. They affect only online reputation

Correct Answer: B. A weighted average may conceal their seriousness