The inflation files · a Worst Eats investigation
Why do ratings crowd the top?
Google star ratings of 1,850 restaurants across 18 US city centers · collected June 2026 · aggregates only
We run a search engine for terrible restaurants. Some searches return almost nothing under four stars. In June 2026 we investigated the results Google Places was giving us. We found a crowded top end of the scale, and a search API that can miss the bottom.
In June 2026 we pulled the Google rating of every restaurant our sweeps could surface within 15 km of 18 US city centers: 1,850 places, deduplicated, allegedly open. Exactly 28 of them (1.5%) rate under three stars. The median restaurant is a 4.4★. And 67.6% of everything lives in the 0.6 stars between 4.0★ and 4.6★. The scale runs from one to five. The data runs from 4.0 to 4.6.
Read this as a historical search sample. These are June 2026 aggregates, not current restaurant rankings, a representative US survey, or evidence that low-rated places no longer exist. Content and methodology reviewed October 15, 2026; the underlying sample has not been refreshed.
What the pileup can tell us
The returned ratings cluster together. In this sample, 1,250 of 1,850 listings fall between 4.0★ and 4.6★. A number that sounds comfortably above average can therefore be ordinary within the places our searches returned. That is a description of this sample, not a universal conversion chart.
The search method matters. We included operating, rated listings that Google surfaced. Closed businesses, unrated places, and listings beyond each search’s result limit are absent. We did not track closures or individual reviews over time, so these totals cannot tell us why ratings cluster or whether they have increased.
“Inflation” is our shorthand. The snapshot shows compressed ratings among returned places. It does not measure a historical inflation rate. Our Street value feature makes that compression visible by showing a rating’s percentile alongside Google’s original stars.
Methodology, honestly
The sweep. For each city we searched a hexagonal grid (seven overlapping cells covering a 15 km radius around the center, plus one popularity-ranked pass over the whole radius) against the Google Places API (New), June 2026. Eight searches per city, results deduplicated by Google place ID, unrated and non-operational listings dropped. 1,850 unique rated restaurants survived.
The cap. Each search in that collection requested up to 20 results. Eight searches could therefore return at most 160 listings per city before deduplication, and Google chose which places appeared. Chicago yielded 75 unique places; San Francisco yielded 56. That does not mean either city has so few restaurants. More targeted searches can add coverage, but do not turn a capped sample into a census.
The frame. This is a sample of what Google surfaces, not a census of what exists. Surfacing skews prominent, and prominent skews well-rated. Somewhere past the top-20 cutoffs sit terrible restaurants we never saw, too obscure for any list.
What this cannot answer. We cannot estimate the share of all US restaurants under three stars, declare a city’s food objectively worse, or infer that low-rated businesses are about to close. A manual Google Maps search can find places these searches missed. The live hunt now uses a different, smaller search plan, with a targeted coverage pilot; read how the current app works.
| City center | rated | median | under 3★ | ≤ 4.0★ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York, NY | 141 | 4.3 | 11 | 41 |
| Los Angeles, CA | 141 | 4.4 | 2 | 23 |
| Chicago, IL | 75 | 4.4 | 0 | 12 |
| Houston, TX | 137 | 4.4 | 2 | 28 |
| Phoenix, AZ | 106 | 4.5 | 0 | 5 |
| Philadelphia, PA | 64 | 4.3 | 1 | 12 |
| San Antonio, TX | 65 | 4.2 | 0 | 10 |
| San Diego, CA | 79 | 4.5 | 0 | 3 |
| Dallas, TX | 80 | 4.3 | 0 | 15 |
| Austin, TX | 136 | 4.5 | 2 | 21 |
| Seattle, WA | 151 | 4.5 | 2 | 12 |
| San Francisco, CA | 56 | 4.4 | 0 | 0 |
| Boston, MA | 68 | 4.3 | 0 | 9 |
| Miami, FL | 129 | 4.5 | 0 | 15 |
| Atlanta, GA | 66 | 4.5 | 0 | 11 |
| Denver, CO | 147 | 4.3 | 5 | 49 |
| Minneapolis, MN | 65 | 4.3 | 0 | 10 |
| Pittsburgh, PA | 144 | 4.4 | 3 | 32 |
| All 18 cities | 1,850 | 4.4 | 28 | 308 |
New York accounts for 11 of the 28 sub-3★ listings in this sample. Denver has 49 of its 147 at or below 4.0★. The lowest rating returned for San Francisco was 4.1★; that is not a claim about its lowest-rated restaurant.
What we publish. Totals only. Per-place lookup data is retained for at most 30 days. These published totals remain the June 2026 snapshot; there is no automatic monthly research refresh. Any future collection will carry its own date and method.
How to read a star rating now
- 4.6★the 75th-percentile restaurant. Genuinely above average. Allowed to feel proud.
- 4.5★barely above the middle: 55.6% of restaurants rate below it.
- 4.4★the median. The median of our returned sample.
- 4.3★sounds great, sits in the bottom third (31.4% rate below it).
- 4.0★the bottom 16.6%. A warning, not a compliment.
- < 3.0★the bottom 1.5%. Rare in this search sample.
The deflator
Street math. Drag to a rating, get what it actually trades for.
Look up your favorite place. Our condolences.
Street value is our arithmetic, not Google’s: the rating’s percentile in the June 2026 pool (ties split), stretched back over 1–5. Beating half the field is what a 3 was supposed to mean.
The bottom 1.5% is still out there
28 confirmed specimens across 18 cities, and near you, a few holdouts the inflation hasn’t reached yet. We built the tool that finds them. Five-star hunting is for cowards.
See what survives near you →Free. No app. The reviews are all real, which is the problem.
If you like research like this, feel free to drop us a tip. It funds the next harvest.
← Back to the hunt