A ranking that explains itself, criterion by criterion
Most teacher directories sort by signup date or by who paid for a subscription. Atlas App does the opposite: the subject is a FILTER — a teacher who does not teach it never appears — and everything else is a score out of 100 points, spread across eight weighted criteria.
Level carries 30 points, because an excellent middle-school teacher is not a final-year teacher. Area carries 20: distance is the number one reason families abandon home tutoring. Then come budget (14), in-person or online format (12), availability (10), experience (8), profile verification (4) and a free trial lesson (2).
Two rules make all the difference in practice. First, a criterion the family left blank penalises nobody: it drops out of the calculation instead of producing an arbitrary ranking from a deliberately short form. Second, every result carries its reasons and its caveats in plain words — "Teaches the requested level", "Works in Agdal", "Has not declared this level". A recommendation you cannot justify inspires no trust, and a family that does not understand the ranking phones the centre to redo it by hand.
- The subject filters; the seven other criteria score — never the reverse
- A blank criterion is an ignored criterion, not a penalising one
- An incomplete profile scores half rather than being excluded — otherwise new teachers stay invisible
- Online lessons cancel the area constraint, and the score says so
- Results appear BEFORE the family is asked for a phone number
- The browser never receives teacher contact details — ranking is computed server-side








