Review inbox
See rating, text, source, restaurant, date, and response state.
Give every restaurant review an owner, a controlled response path, and an operational follow-up when feedback reveals a service issue.
Review source, restaurant, rating, topic, response, owner, private recovery, corrective action, and trend remain connected.
See rating, text, source, restaurant, date, and response state.
Classify food, service, wait, value, atmosphere, and urgent risk.
Assign response and recovery to the responsible restaurant team.
Draft, edit, approve, and record public reply status.
Create private follow-up and corrective work without exposing details.
Compare rating, response time, themes, and unresolved issues.
Who it's for
Compare locations while keeping each manager accountable for response and recovery.
Apply shared brand guidance with location-specific ownership and escalation.
Coordinate review queues, approved responses, campaigns, and recurring guest themes.
A review needs context, a public response needs ownership, and service problems need an internal path to resolution.
Bring rating, review text, source, location, visit context where available, response state, and detected topics into one queue. A manager confirms ambiguous or sensitive classification.
The reviewer sees the guest’s words, visit facts, brand guidance, previous edits, and private recovery plan before approving a public response. Sensitive replies never publish from an unseen suggestion.
Review the source material, draft, safeguards, and assigned follow-up before confirming the public outcome.
Create an issue from a review or theme, assign the location owner, record investigation and corrective work, and close the loop without treating the public response as the end of the process.
Brand teams, restaurant managers, and operations leaders share the same feedback while acting at the right level.
Prioritise low ratings, sensitive themes, overdue drafts, and location responses waiting for brand review.
Investigate visit context, contact guests privately where appropriate, and own corrective work.
Compare ratings, response time, unresolved issues, and recurring food or service themes across restaurants.
Standard review tools centralise comments. Component.app can adapt restaurant ownership, brand approvals, escalation, recovery, and operating actions to your group structure.
Define priority from rating, theme, restaurant, repeat issue, guest follow-up, or brand risk. The system explains the proposed route and holds uncertain cases for a person to confirm.
Locations can draft using local visit context while brand, legal, or operations approval applies only to selected ratings and themes. Every edit and decision stays on the review.
Review the source material, draft, safeguards, and assigned follow-up before confirming the public outcome.
An approved reply can be prepared for Google Business Profile or another selected provider where its API and permissions support publishing. The external result or manual fallback remains recorded.
Feedback moves through triage, response review, publication, service recovery, and performance reporting.
Record the source, restaurant, rating, text, and visit context.
Rules propose theme, priority, location owner, and response path.
A person confirms sensitive wording and service-recovery ownership.
Record the reply, complete corrective work, and update reporting.
It helps restaurant teams centralise reviews, assign ownership, draft and approve responses, coordinate private recovery, track corrective action, and compare themes across locations.
Yes. Local managers can receive scoped queues and actions while central teams retain group policies, sensitive approvals, escalations, and combined reporting.
The system can prepare an editable draft using approved context and guidance. A named person can review sensitive wording and confirm the response before it becomes public.
Where reliable identifiers and supported data are available, a review can be linked to the relevant restaurant, reservation, visit, or guest-recovery record without exposing private details publicly.
It can connect to Google Business Profile or another selected provider where the API, permissions, and agreed setup support the action. Manual fallbacks can remain part of the workflow.
Yes. Themes can follow your own taxonomy and be reviewed when ambiguous, then reported by location, period, rating, issue state, or owner.
Role-based access, scoped location views, private recovery notes, retention rules, and review controls can support responsible handling. Public responses should avoid personal or visit-specific details.
Show us your locations, approval rules, guest-recovery process, and recurring service themes. We will connect them in one accountable workflow.