Hi @Robin4,
Indeed 2 out of (roughly) 200 would mean 99%, that’s correct.
But it does not entirely work that way.
Rounding in big(ger) numbers is the differentiator (The Whiz-kids in SF know this too)!
Because what is 1 out of 206? (Right! 0.49%; And this rounded to the nearest percentage is: 0%).
So in theory, you could have gotten:
1x 1-Star
1x 2-Star
1x 3-Star
2x 4-Star
201x 5-Star
And your graph will still show: 99% 5-Star and 1% 4-Star
Your average would however be: 4.9466 (Rounded at 1 digit, would be 4.9)
Fortunately, for you it is not that bad.
Basically it is the same difference between the previous Superhost calculation of 80% 5-Star reviews, versus the current average of a 4.8 Star-Rating or higher.
Commonly it will not affect the most of us. Because when guests dinge us. They will typically leave a 4-Star, rather than a 5-Star. So to the most of us – the changed calculation will not make much of a difference (It will, when 4-Stars do become lower than that!)
I will exaggerate significantly in the example below, to make the difference clear:
In the past: 10 Reviews: 8 of them being a 5-Star, and 2 of them being a 1-Star.
You would have been a happy Superhost, until April 2018.
Nowadays, the same example would bring you to: an average of a 4.2 Star-Rating.
I.e.: No more Superhost plus loads of automated warnings about possible automatic suspension of your listing!
In the same example as above, but then: 10 Reviews: 8 of them being a 5-Star, and 2 of them being a 4-Star.
Would lead to 80% 5-Star reviews and a 4.8 Star average (So no difference at all).
Your listings shows a 5-star all-over! So nothing to be really worried about.
When I look at your numbers for Value and Location (These are always the troubled ones).
And I suppose many Superhosts will feel this way, the same as I do.
It may make a little sense to look at these.
Oh, and by the way: When T… or G… comes along, I will try to persuade them to cancel themselves. We can miss them, like toothache 😄