Frequently asked questions

The Centre Line is an independent, verified review platform for hockey tournaments, leagues, and clubs in Canada, the USA, and Europe. Every reviewer must verify their email, declare their standing (parent, player, coach, volunteer, or board), and answer structured questions across seven dimensions before posting.

The Centre Line is operated by Train 2.0 Hockey Coaching Inc., based at 55 East 5th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, Canada. It is independent and not owned by, sponsored by, or affiliated with any hockey league, tournament, governing body, or program.

Both the score AND the individual reviews stay hidden until a program has at least 5 verified reviews on file. Below that threshold a single voice would set the read for everyone, so nothing review-shaped publishes until five families have weighed in. When the threshold is hit, the score, the dimensions, and every reviewer's take release together. We'd rather show "n of 5 verified reviews" than mislead a parent with a lone opinion.

Yes, anonymous by default. Every review publishes as "Verified reviewer" with no role, no tier, no name. On the last step of the review flow you can opt in, per item, to: show your role (parent / coach / etc.), show your specific relationship (division, tier, season, current-or-former status), or show your full name. Each toggle is off by default and each can be flipped back off later. None are required. Sharing more raises the credibility weight of your review in the aggregate, capped so a single voice can't dominate. Honest caveat: our internal admin team can always see who submitted a review (for moderation: catching fakes and conflict-of-interest reviews, and for auditing the aggregate). We never share that with the program, the public, or anyone else.

We email-verify every reviewer at sign-in (magic link, no password). That proves you're a real person with a real inbox. We use that link internally for moderation: confirmed fakes get removed, repeat-offender accounts get flagged. But by default the verified email never appears in the published review. The link from your email to the published review only exists inside our admin layer and only surfaces publicly if you explicitly opt in to share your full name.

The aggregate is a weighted mean of all published reviews on a program, not an equal-weight mean. Each review carries a weight in [0.25, 3.0]. The default for an anonymous single-review submission is 1.0. The weight goes up with (a) transparency: opting in to show your role / relationship / full name, max +0.60; (b) history: prior published reviews across the site, max +0.75; (c) balance: both required passages meet the 60-word floor, +0.15; (d) community signal: helpful-votes from other readers, max +0.40. The cap (3.0) is set so no single reviewer can dominate a 5-review aggregate. Full formula and weights live on the methodology page.

Don't. Standing is required, and "board member or staff of the program" disqualifies you. Your review will be removed in moderation. If we catch you systematically posting under fake parent standing, your account is banned. This is also why programs can't pay to be ranked higher: the entire system breaks if conflict-of-interest reviews are allowed.

Organization, Development, Playing-time fairness, Cost vs. value, Culture & sportsmanship, Pathway, and Parent & family scene. Each is anchored: reviewers see a written description of what a 1, 3, or 5 looks like before they pick a number, so the same number means roughly the same thing across reviewers.

Yes. Every review must include a "what this program does well" answer AND a "what to warn another family about" answer. Reviews missing either side are rejected at submit time. The goal is calibration, not catharsis.

We surface a balanced pair of public quotes (one positive and one critical where possible) from Reddit, HFBoards, press coverage, blogs, and forums. Every quote is a verbatim copy with a direct, live URL to its source, captured at a specific date. We don't paraphrase. If we can't find a real, sourced quote, the section stays empty.

Anyone signed in can submit a claim from a program's profile page with their role and a proof link (a page on the official website that names them). The system flags whether the proof URL matches the program's website. An admin approves or rejects. Approved claims mark the listing as "Claimed" but do not allow the operator to remove negative reviews. They can only post a single right-of-reply (rolling out in v1.1).

No, and that's by design. The Centre Line scores programs on their systems (communication, expectations, fairness, development, value, culture, pathway, family experience), not individuals. Reviews that target a specific person rather than the program get edited or removed in moderation. The goal is accountability for how programs are run; the mirror image is recognition for the contributors who make hockey work in the community. That's what the "what this program does well" passage is for. A structured contributor-recognition layer is on the v1.x roadmap.

No. Rankings are computed from verified reviews only, weighted by reviewer credibility, not by anything the program can buy. We do not accept payment for placement, scoring weight, or visibility. Ever. If we add monetization later (e.g., a featured-listing tier), it will be visually distinct and clearly labelled, and it will never affect the underlying aggregate score.

Programs are added continuously by an admin team and by a monthly discovery cron that scans 13 governing-body and league directories for new entries. Aggregate scores recompute on every review write. The sitemap regenerates hourly. External quotes are reviewed quarterly for link freshness.

Every review has a "Report" button next to "Helpful." Reports go into a moderation queue. We also accept reports via the feedback form. Fake-review reports require a brief explanation: we investigate, contact the reviewer if needed, and remove confirmed fakes.

No. Standing matters. If you've never been a parent, player, coach, volunteer, or board member in a program, you cannot submit a review for it. Reviews missing standing are rejected.

The BCHL broke from Hockey Canada and the CJHL in 2023 to operate independently. We use "rogue" as a neutral term meaning "not under a National Governing Body sanctioning umbrella." It's a fact-of-status descriptor, not a judgment of quality.

Not yet. The public site is the only interface today. If you have a research or journalism use case, contact us via the feedback form and we'll see what we can do.

Google reviews are unverified, unstructured, and unweighted. The Centre Line requires email verification + standing + answers on seven anchored dimensions + both sides. Each Centre Line review is roughly equivalent to a structured interview, not a star rating.