Our credibility score is a 0–100 rating that reflects how strongly an expert source stands behind a specific dish at a specific restaurant. It is not a review of the restaurant, and it is not a vibes-based ranking. It is a structured score built from a small number of inputs and surfaced everywhere you see a dish pick on FoodTree.
Methodology
Every credibility score starts with sourcing transparency. We note who attests to the dish — a chef, a sommelier, a food critic, or a category expert — and how often that source has been right on other dishes in the same city. A single, anonymous source caps the score; a named source with a track record raises it.
Next we factor in recency. A dish that was the source's pick a year ago and is still on the menu counts more than one whose last verification is older. Stale recommendations are downgraded.
Finally we adjust for category fit. A sommelier's pick on pasta is weighed differently from a pasta-maker's pick on the same dish. The credibility score is the conversation between these signals, not a single number any one of them can dominate.
Why it is not a review
Reviews describe whether a critic liked a meal. Credibility describes whether a trusted source would order the dish again. Both matter, but they answer different questions, and we want our surfaces to make the distinction visible.
That is also why the score is graded, not binary. A 72 is a dish we are confident in; a 58 is a dish worth trying but with weaker sourcing; anything below 30 is a placeholder we will not surface until a named expert backs it.
What this enables
Once a credibility score exists for a dish, we can rank, group, and explain it without writing a full review. The /journal route is where we explain how the system is built; the city pages are where you see it applied.
← Back to the Journal