How We Rank

Our Ranking Philosophy

Great rankings require three things: independence (no business can buy placement), expertise (evaluators understand what quality means in each category), and transparency (readers know exactly how rankings are determined).

We apply this philosophy across every category on Rankin.

Universal Ranking Principles

1. No Paid Placements

Businesses cannot pay to be included, ranked higher, or featured. Rankings are editorial decisions based on published criteria. This is non-negotiable.

2. Multiple Independent Evaluators

At least three editors independently evaluate each business to reduce individual bias. Editors don't confer until after initial scoring, and outliers are discussed to ensure consistency.

3. Published, Specific Criteria

Every category has documented evaluation criteria with weights. You can read category-specific methodology pages:

• Design Studios Methodology
• Dentists Methodology
• Gyms Methodology

4. Evidence-Based Evaluation

Scores must be supported by verifiable evidence—credentials, portfolios, awards, verified outcomes. Subjective assessments reference specific evidence points.

5. Regular Updates

All categories are reviewed quarterly. Major changes (closures, quality incidents) trigger immediate updates. All changes are documented in our public changelog.

Our Research Process

Step 1: Business Identification

For each category and location, we build a comprehensive list of eligible businesses through:

• Award winner databases
• Professional licensing records
• Industry publications and "best of" lists (critically reviewed)
• Conference speakers and thought leaders
• User suggestions via contact form

Eligibility criteria: Businesses must have at least 2 years of operation, verifiable portfolio/credentials, active operation, and physical presence in the location.

Step 2: Criteria Development

For each category, we identify 5-8 key quality dimensions based on:

• What industry experts prioritize
• What outcomes matter to customers
• What we can verify objectively
• What differentiates good from great

Criteria are weighted by importance. For example, clinical expertise matters more than office decor for dentists.

Step 3: Independent Evaluation

Three editors score each business independently:

1. Editors receive business information with names hidden when possible (blind evaluation)
2. Each criterion is scored 0-10 based on published rubrics
3. Editors document evidence for scores
4. No conferring occurs until all three complete their evaluations

Step 4: Calibration & Finalization

After independent scoring:

• Scores with >2 point variance are discussed
• Editors review each other's evidence
• Scores are adjusted only if new information emerges or clear errors are found
• Final scores are the average of three editors' calibrated scores

Step 5: Fact-Checking

Before publication, a separate editor verifies:

• All factual claims (addresses, credentials, awards)
• Pricing estimates against multiple sources
• Business operational status
• Links and references

Step 6: Publication & Monitoring

Published rankings include:

• Overall scores and detailed breakdowns for top businesses
• Last updated date and number of businesses evaluated
• Link to category-specific methodology
• Disclosure of any conflicts of interest

We monitor for business changes, user-reported corrections, and industry developments that require updates.

Data Sources We Use

Source Type	Reliability	How We Use It
Professional Licensing Databases	High	Verify credentials, check disciplinary actions
Award Databases	High	Objective recognition from reputable institutions
Business Portfolios/Websites	High (for facts)	Primary source for services, projects, team info
Industry Publications	Medium-High	Press coverage, features, expert opinions
Client Testimonials	Medium	Process quality, communication patterns
Review Platforms	Low-Medium	Identify consistent patterns only (not individual reviews)
Social Media	Low	Supporting evidence only, never primary basis

Quality Controls

Bias Reduction

• Blind evaluation: Names hidden during portfolio/quality assessment when possible
• Multiple evaluators: Three independent perspectives required
• Conflict recusal: Editors with personal or financial connections cannot evaluate those businesses
• Rubric-based scoring: Defined scales prevent "I know it when I see it" subjectivity

Verification Steps

• All factual claims cross-referenced with primary sources
• Credentials checked against official databases
• Award claims verified in award organization records
• Pricing estimates triangulated across multiple data points
• Business operational status confirmed within 30 days of publication

Peer Review

Before publication, rankings are reviewed by:

• Editorial director (methodology adherence, consistency check)
• Fact-checker (verification of all factual claims)
• Category specialist (domain expertise review)

What We Don't Do

How Updates Work

Quarterly Reviews (Every 3 Months)

Each category undergoes comprehensive review:

• New businesses that meet eligibility are evaluated
• Existing businesses are re-scored if significant changes occurred
• Outdated information (pricing, services) is refreshed
• Rankings adjust based on relative performance

Immediate Updates (Within 72 Hours)

Certain events trigger emergency updates:

• Business closure or permanent suspension
• Professional license suspension or revocation
• Major safety incidents or regulatory actions
• Ownership changes that materially affect quality

Correction Updates (Within 24 Hours)

Factual errors are corrected immediately upon verification with correction notice published.

Category-Specific Methodologies

While these principles apply universally, each category has specific evaluation criteria tailored to what matters in that field:

• Design Studios →

  Portfolio quality (25%), client results (20%), industry recognition (15%), process quality (15%), team expertise (15%), innovation (10%)

• Dentists →

  Clinical excellence (30%), technology (20%), patient outcomes (15%), safety/hygiene (15%), patient experience (10%), transparency (10%)

• Gyms →

  Equipment quality (25%), cleanliness (20%), training quality (15%), class variety (15%), member experience (15%), value (10%)

Limitations & Acknowledgments

Our methodology has inherent limitations we acknowledge:

• Subjective elements: Quality assessment involves judgment even with rubrics
• Public information only: We can't access confidential client data or private business records
• Geographic constraints: We can't visit every location in person
• Timing delays: Newly launched businesses need time to build evidence
• Category breadth: Within broad categories, specializations vary significantly

We work to minimize these limitations but cannot eliminate them entirely. We state assumptions and confidence levels when appropriate.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can businesses request to be ranked?

Anyone can suggest a business for review. Suggestion doesn't guarantee inclusion—businesses must meet eligibility criteria and score competitively.

How do you handle business complaints about rankings?

Businesses can report factual errors, which we investigate within 5 days. Businesses cannot dispute subjective scores unless based on factual errors or methodology violations.

Do you notify businesses before ranking them?

No. We evaluate businesses based on publicly available information. After publication, businesses may request factual corrections.

Why don't lower-ranked businesses get detailed write-ups?

We provide detailed analysis for top 10 businesses in each city. This balances thoroughness with reader usability—50+ detailed profiles would be overwhelming.

Have questions about our methodology?
Contact us at editorial@thetop10rank.com or via our contact form. We're committed to transparency and welcome constructive feedback.