Hi, thanks for your interest in how we calculate an experience's ranking score. It's at the core of Rankers so I'm pleased you're curious.
The ranking score percentage is used to compare and sort experiences in ranking tables. It is not necessarily a direct measurement of the quality of a particular experience as rated by its customers. I've found it a useful tool to allow me to find the best experiences with confidence. But I've also found it important to read the customer reviews before making any final judgements!
We calculate an experience's ranking score using a multi-factor data model instead of a raw data average (mean). This model takes into account several important questions. For instance - is there a trusted body of reviews? What is the age of a review and is the review from a credible source?
Below you'll find details around some of the important factors that went into calculating the ranking score for Alpine Recreation.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at info@rankers.co.nz. We don't believe this is perfect or complete so we're always interested in ways we might make improvements.
Alpine Recreation
Valid Reviews
139 Valid Reviews
The Alpine Recreation experience has a total of 139 valid reviews. There are no invalid reviews that are excluded from the calculation. Reviews can be excluded only when a reviewer is not verified or after an investigation by our team determines the reviewer is not genuine.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 139 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 104 |
|
75% |
| 9/10 | 24 |
|
17% |
| 8/10 | 10 |
|
7% |
| 7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
96.33% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Alpine Recreation valid reviews is 96.33% and is based on 139 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
Face-to-Face Reviews
7 Face-to-Face Reviews
The Rankers team meets with travellers while they’re in New Zealand and conducts face-to-face surveys. These reviews, in our opinion, are the most trusted in the industry and represent a critical control sample. To our knowledge, we are the only travel review website in the world that has gone to this extent.
More about face-to-face reviews
Within the 139 valid reviews, the experience has 7 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 7 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 2 |
|
29% |
| 9/10 | 3 |
|
43% |
| 8/10 | 2 |
|
29% |
| 7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
90.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Alpine Recreation face-to-face reviews is 90.00% and is based on 7 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
96.78%
Rankers calculates a weighted mean as a base average on which we can improve. Individual review's ratings are given a weight based on several factors. The weight of a review determines the overall impact it'll have on the final weighted average.
Recent reviews have more weight as they are more relevant and reflect the experience as it currently operates. Over time reviews become less relevant and loose their impact on the ranking score.
Low rating reviews carry slightly less weight. This dampens the effect of very low ratings for every experience across the board. This is especially important when the experience has few reviews overall and a single negative rating can grossly mischaracterise an experience. Consistent poor reviews will still result in the experience receiving a comparitively low ranking score.
Credible sources provide reviews that can be trusted. If we have verified a reviewer is genuine via a face-to-face meeting then the review carries additional weight.
| Reviewer | Rating | Age | Relative Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Mullins | 10/10 | 1604 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 1909 days | 62% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 1972 days | 60% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2001 days | 60% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2031 days | 59% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2092 days | 57% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2120 days | 34% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2123 days | 57% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2123 days | 57% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2182 days | 55% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2182 days | 55% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2182 days | 55% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2204 days | 55% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2243 days | 54% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2274 days | 53% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2274 days | 53% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2274 days | 53% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2304 days | 52% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2366 days | 51% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 2457 days | 48% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 2457 days | 48% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 2481 days | 47% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 2516 days | 47% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 2516 days | 25% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 2547 days | 46% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 2547 days | 46% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 2578 days | 45% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 2608 days | 44% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 2608 days | 44% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 2608 days | 44% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 2662 days | 43% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 2669 days | 42% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 2700 days | 42% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 2710 days | 41% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 2731 days | 41% |
| david john | 10/10 | 2731 days | 41% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 2792 days | 40% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 2874 days | 38% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 2881 days | 38% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 2881 days | 38% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 2881 days | 22% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 2943 days | 36% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 2973 days | 35% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 2992 days | 35% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3034 days | 34% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3065 days | 33% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3187 days | 30% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3247 days | 28% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3278 days | 28% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3278 days | 28% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3278 days | 28% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3278 days | 28% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3302 days | 16% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3309 days | 27% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3309 days | 27% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3309 days | 27% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3339 days | 26% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3339 days | 26% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3339 days | 26% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3339 days | 26% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3400 days | 24% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3400 days | 24% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3431 days | 23% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3431 days | 23% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 3453 days | 23% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 3553 days | 21% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 3553 days | 21% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 3584 days | 20% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 3643 days | 18% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 3643 days | 18% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 3674 days | 17% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 3704 days | 17% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 3704 days | 17% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 3796 days | 15% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 3796 days | 15% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 3827 days | 14% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 3827 days | 13% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 3918 days | 11% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 3935 days | 6% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 3977 days | 10% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4002 days | 6% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4008 days | 9% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4008 days | 9% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4008 days | 9% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4008 days | 9% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4008 days | 9% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4017 days | 5% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4039 days | 8% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4039 days | 8% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4039 days | 8% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4055 days | 5% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4161 days | 5% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4161 days | 5% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4283 days | 2% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4283 days | 2% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4314 days | 1% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4342 days | 1% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4342 days | 1% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4342 days | 1% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4342 days | 1% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4373 days | 0% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4373 days | 0% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4404 days | 13% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4404 days | 13% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4404 days | 13% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4404 days | 13% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4434 days | 13% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 4465 days | 13% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 4495 days | 13% |
| marta | 10/10 | 4526 days | 13% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 4526 days | 13% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 4557 days | 13% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 4557 days | 13% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 4679 days | 13% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 4708 days | 13% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 4708 days | 13% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 4739 days | 13% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 4770 days | 13% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 4800 days | 13% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 4800 days | 13% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 4800 days | 13% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 4831 days | 13% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 4861 days | 13% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 4861 days | 13% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 4892 days | 13% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 4923 days | 13% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5014 days | 13% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5045 days | 13% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5045 days | 13% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5073 days | 13% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5073 days | 13% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5135 days | 13% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5135 days | 13% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5135 days | 12% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5135 days | 13% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5165 days | 13% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5165 days | 13% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5257 days | 12% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5257 days | 13% |
Adjustments
Several adjustments to the weighted average are added to improve relevancy and credibility. These adjustments apply equally to all experiences that meet the criteria.
Sample Size Adjustment
No Adjustment
A reasonable number of reviews are necessary in order for the average to be credible and for an experience to take a prime position within the ranking tables. As such, experiences with only a few reviews have a moderated score. This does not mean that the experience or the reviews can't be trusted. The Alpine Recreation experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-4.03% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 41 days. However the Alpine Recreation experience does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
In addition, an experience's ranking score may be adjusted for each day there is no new ranking. After 1 day the adjustment comes into effect. The maximum number of days that can be adjusted for is 200 days. Due to the seasonal nature of many businesses, this adjustment is applied dynamically throughout the year.
The Alpine Recreation experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -3.97% |
| 198 | -3.99% |
| 199 | -4.01% |
| 200 | -4.03% |
| 201 | -4.05% |
| 202 | -4.07% |
| 203 | -4.09% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.66% Adjustment
Every experience's review score is adjusted to balance out the disproportional number of negative reviews that are contributed.
You won't be surprised to learn that disgruntled customers are more likely to leave a review than happy ones. They are motivated to share their experience and warn others. We consider this a good thing and it's why reading the reviews is important. However we've learned it can misrepresent the experience in a more overall sense.
We apply a balancing adjustment to counteract this effect and ensure the ranking score is a more fair representation of the experience. This adjustment is applied equally to all experiences.
Final Ranking Score
93%
The final ranking score once any adjustments, ratings, and rounding has been applied. This value is recalculated each day and a short rolling average is applied. Therefore it may not be precisely accurate based on the other values presented.