In our data study we searched for the key phrase Correctional Services Department in New York City, and then repeated this for the other top 199 most populated cities in the United States. We then analyzed Correctional Services Department Google Business (previously: Google My Business) Profiles to understand the Industry. How many reviews do you need? How many reviews do you need to rank in the top 3 of Google? And much more.
Average Number Of Reviews For All Correctional Services Department Companies
After conducting a thorough analysis of Correctional Services Department Google My Business profiles in the top 200 most populated cities in the United States, we found that the average number of reviews for all companies in this category is 85. This means that on average, Correctional Services Department companies have received 85 reviews from customers on their Google My Business profiles. However, it is important to note that there is a wide range of review counts among these companies, with some having as few as 4 or less reviews and others having as many as 500 or less. Additionally, we found that a significant portion of these companies have received very few reviews, with 10 or less being the case for 30% of the companies analyzed. Overall, our study sheds light on the review and reputation management landscape for Correctional Services Department companies in the United States.
Average Number Of Reviews Of The Correctional Services Department Companies Ranked In The Top 3 Of Google
After conducting a thorough data study on the Correctional Services Department companies in the top 200 most populated cities in the United States, we found some interesting results. The average number of reviews for the top 3 companies in San Diego was 709, which was significantly higher than the other cities on the list. Phoenix came in second with an average of 497 reviews, followed by Philadelphia with 215 reviews. Surprisingly, New York, which is known for its large population and high number of correctional facilities, had zero reviews for its top 3 companies. Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, and San Jose also had no reviews for their top 3 companies. This data suggests that there is a significant disparity in the online reputation management of Correctional Services Department companies across different cities in the United States. Further research is needed to understand the reasons behind these differences and to develop strategies to improve the online presence of these companies.
Cities With The Highest Amount Of Correctional Services Department Google Reviews
After conducting a thorough data study on the Correctional Services Department Google My Business profiles in the top 200 most populated cities in the United States, we found that Newark, New Jersey had the highest amount of Google reviews with a staggering 2919. Following closely behind were Clarksville, Tennessee and Washington, D.C. with 2793 reviews each. Durham, North Carolina and Jacksonville, Florida rounded out the top five with 2757 and 2712 reviews respectively. It’s interesting to note that the cities with the highest amount of reviews were not necessarily the most populated cities, indicating that the reputation management landscape for correctional services departments may vary depending on location. Overall, this data study provides valuable insights into the online presence and reputation of correctional services departments across the United States.
Cities With The Least Amount Of Correctional Services Department Google Reviews That Still Ranked In The Top 3
After conducting a thorough data study on the Correctional Services Department Google My Business profiles of the top 200 most populated cities in the United States, it was found that some cities had surprisingly low numbers of reviews despite ranking in the top 3. Austin, Aurora, Atlanta, Arlington, Anchorage, Anaheim, Amarillo, Alexandria, Albuquerque, and Akron all had zero reviews for their Correctional Services Department. This raises questions about the level of engagement and awareness among the public regarding these departments in these cities. It also highlights the potential for improvement in terms of reputation management and the need for more proactive measures to encourage feedback and engagement from the community.