Choose a defensible matching method
A booking can identify a departure, and a roster can identify its guides. A review may also name a guide. These are different sources of evidence. Record the basis for attribution so the team can distinguish an explicit mention from a booking-based match.
Allow for shared work
Some experiences use several guides, drivers or coordinators. A guest may comment on the tour as a whole. Keep shared and uncertain cases visible instead of assigning every review to one individual simply to complete a report.
Read comments alongside volume
A small number of reviews can produce a dramatic average. Compare periods and sample sizes before treating a change as a pattern. Read the actual comments and recognise factors outside the guide’s control, such as weather, booking instructions or transport disruptions.
Use feedback for learning
Discuss specific examples privately and give staff a route to correct a mistaken match. Recognise useful behaviour and identify training opportunities. Avoid turning an uncertain attribution method into an automatic judgement about individual performance.
A concrete example
A guide on three small tours cannot be compared fairly with someone leading fifteen large departures using raw review counts alone. Explicit name mentions also differ from roster-based matches.
Put it to work this week
Document how a review is matched and compare guides with the departure context visible.