Review activity in Baytown, Texas

Baytown, Texas scores 85.7 out of 100 (very active) for recent published-review activity. In the last 90 days, 14 reviews reached 10 of 47 public businesses.

Daily snapshot: 2026-09-05

Activity score
85.7
90-day coverage
21.3%
Reviews / 100 businesses
29.8
Median freshness
4 months

How current are massage reviews in Baytown?

Each component is 0–100 against the same eligible-region national P5–P95 scale.

Explainable components of the Review Activity Index score
ComponentWeightPointsObserved value
Coverage40%97.610 of 47 businesses received a review in 90 days (21.3%).
Velocity30%56.029.8 capped reviews per 100 businesses in 90 days (14 observed before the cap).
Freshness30%99.6The median business with review history was last reviewed 4 months ago.

Comparison snapshot

This area
85.7 · Very active
United States
50.9 · Moderate

Other scored areas in Texas

Review activity near Baytown, Texas
RankAreaScoreCoverageReviews 90dFreshness
1Frisco, Texas100.023.1%1304 months
2Georgetown, Texas99.924.0%404 months
3Coppell, Texas99.826.9%284 months
4Sugar Land, Texas99.827.8%694 months
5Kingwood, Texas99.321.4%594 months
6Allen, Texas98.021.9%586 months
7Cedar Park, Texas97.221.0%375 months
8Flower Mound, Texas96.622.4%313 months
9Brownsville, Texas95.119.7%364 months
10Tyler, Texas94.923.9%325 months

Looking for businesses and reviews? Browse massage in Baytown.

How to read the index

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.