Columbia, South Carolina scores 72.1 out of 100 (active) for recent published-review activity. In the last 90 days, 30 reviews reached 14 of 77 public businesses.
Daily snapshot: 2026-09-04
Each component is 0–100 against the same eligible-region national P5–P95 scale.
| Component | Weight | Points | Observed value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage | 40% | 68.0 | 14 of 77 businesses received a review in 90 days (18.2%). |
| Velocity | 30% | 63.7 | 39.0 capped reviews per 100 businesses in 90 days (30 observed before the cap). |
| Freshness | 30% | 86.1 | The median business with review history was last reviewed 5 months ago. |
| Rank | Area | Score | Coverage | Reviews 90d | Freshness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fort Mill, South Carolina | 100.0 | 33.3% | 29 | 3 months |
| 2 | Aiken, South Carolina | 79.2 | 21.1% | 16 | 5 months |
| 3 | Greenville, South Carolina | 73.7 | 20.3% | 20 | 4 months |
| 4 | Summerville, South Carolina | 67.1 | 18.1% | 20 | 4 months |
| 5 | Florence, South Carolina | 65.0 | 17.3% | 20 | 4 months |
| 6 | Camden, South Carolina | 64.3 | 19.0% | 10 | 5 months |
| 7 | Beaufort, South Carolina | 64.1 | 18.0% | 13 | 4 months |
| 8 | Mt Pleasant, South Carolina | 64.1 | 13.9% | 27 | 4 months |
| 9 | North Augusta, South Carolina | 62.4 | 16.7% | 7 | 4 months |
| 10 | Hilton Head Island, South Carolina | 61.5 | 16.4% | 18 | 4 months |
Looking for businesses and reviews? Browse massage in Columbia.
The 0–100 score is relative to eligible US regions in this snapshot. Coverage contributes 40%, velocity 30% and freshness 30%; each component is scaled against the national P5–P95 range. It measures review activity in this directory, not business quality, safety, demand or the full offline market.
A score is published only with at least 30 public businesses and 50 reviews in 365 days. Ranking additionally requires at least 20 reviews in 90 days. For velocity, any one business contributes at most 8.0 recent reviews in this snapshot (the national P95 among businesses with recent reviews).
Review time uses visit date when known, then source publication date, then the date the review entered Rubmp. Future dates are clamped to the snapshot time. Read the full methodology and caveats.