Garnier
Fructis Sleek & Stay Smoothing Hair Treatment
hair
Every rater, every axis
Labor
- 55
Packaging
- 32
Coverage & match quality
2 ratings · 2 of 4 axes
- Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
- Fewer raters reach smaller-brand products, so a missing rating is not a clean bill of health, only a gap.
no black box
How this score is built
no black box
How this score is built
We don't rate products ourselves. We collect what each public rater already says, put every scale on common ground, and keep the disagreements visible instead of averaging them away.
- 1
Collect each rater's own score
Every source keeps its native verdict for this product. We never invent a score for an axis a source didn't measure.
- 2
Normalize to 0–100, higher = better
Raters can use different scales and directions: some where a low number means safe, some where a high one does. We map them all onto one 0–100 axis and flip the ones that run backwards so the numbers are finally comparable.
- 3
Average per axis, but keep the spread
Scores on the same axis become one representative number (their mean). When raters split by 20+ points we flag it and keep every rater's number. A disagreement is never blended into silence.
- 4
Your weights make the overall
The ring is the weighted average of the four pillars using your weights. It's computed fresh every time and never stored, so there's no hidden “objective” default.
worked example · Labor
- Cruelty-Free Certification55 on 0–10055
Single raterpillar55
Weighted by what you care about
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+
Ingredient safetyno rating
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Environmentalno rating
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
1.0×
1.0×
0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.
What we know about the packaging
Partly identified1 of 2 identified
1 of 2 packaging components is a named material; Plastic (unspecified) is recorded only in general terms, so that part of the score is a stand-in.
- Recorded only as “plastic” — no resin code. It could be PET (#1) (widely recyclable) or PVC (#3) (hard to recycle); nothing on record says which, so it counts as 46 out of 100, the middle of that range.
This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.
How we know the packaging
Nobody published the material for this product, so it was read from the product photo — the container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. Treat the packaging score as weaker here than on a product with a declared material.
A photo also cannot show the resin code moulded into the base, so every plastic container reads as “plastic, unspecified” — the cautious end of the plastics range, not a finding about this particular bottle.