G'day, 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 | 1555 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 1860 days | 54% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 1923 days | 52% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 1952 days | 52% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 1981 days | 51% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2042 days | 50% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2071 days | 29% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2073 days | 49% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2074 days | 49% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2132 days | 47% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2133 days | 48% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2133 days | 48% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2155 days | 47% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2193 days | 46% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2224 days | 46% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2224 days | 46% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2224 days | 46% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2254 days | 45% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2316 days | 44% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 2408 days | 42% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 2408 days | 42% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 2432 days | 41% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 2466 days | 41% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 2467 days | 22% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 2497 days | 40% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 2497 days | 40% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 2528 days | 39% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 2558 days | 39% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 2558 days | 38% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 2558 days | 39% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 2613 days | 37% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 2619 days | 37% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 2650 days | 37% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 2661 days | 36% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 2681 days | 36% |
| david john | 10/10 | 2681 days | 36% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 2742 days | 35% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 2825 days | 33% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 2831 days | 33% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 2831 days | 33% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 2832 days | 19% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 2893 days | 31% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 2923 days | 31% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 2943 days | 30% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2984 days | 29% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3015 days | 29% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3137 days | 26% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3198 days | 25% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3228 days | 24% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3228 days | 24% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3229 days | 24% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3229 days | 24% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3253 days | 14% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3259 days | 24% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3260 days | 24% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3260 days | 24% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3289 days | 22% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3289 days | 23% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3289 days | 23% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3290 days | 22% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3350 days | 22% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3350 days | 21% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3381 days | 21% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3381 days | 21% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 3404 days | 20% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 3503 days | 18% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 3503 days | 18% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 3534 days | 17% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 3593 days | 16% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 3593 days | 16% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 3624 days | 15% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 3654 days | 15% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 3654 days | 15% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 3746 days | 13% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 3747 days | 13% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 3778 days | 12% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 3778 days | 12% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 3869 days | 10% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 3886 days | 6% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 3928 days | 9% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 3953 days | 5% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 3959 days | 8% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 3959 days | 9% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 3959 days | 9% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 3959 days | 9% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 3959 days | 9% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 3968 days | 5% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 3990 days | 8% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 3990 days | 8% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 3990 days | 8% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4006 days | 4% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4112 days | 5% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4112 days | 5% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4234 days | 3% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4234 days | 3% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4265 days | 2% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4293 days | 1% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4293 days | 1% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4293 days | 1% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4293 days | 1% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4324 days | 1% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4324 days | 1% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4355 days | 0% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4355 days | 0% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4355 days | 0% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4355 days | 0% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4385 days | 10% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 4416 days | 10% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 4446 days | 10% |
| marta | 10/10 | 4477 days | 10% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 4477 days | 10% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 4508 days | 10% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 4508 days | 10% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 4630 days | 10% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 4659 days | 10% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 4659 days | 10% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 4690 days | 10% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 4721 days | 10% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 4751 days | 10% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 4751 days | 10% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 4751 days | 10% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 4782 days | 10% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 4812 days | 10% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 4812 days | 10% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 4843 days | 10% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 4874 days | 10% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 4965 days | 10% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 4996 days | 10% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 4996 days | 10% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5024 days | 10% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5024 days | 10% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5086 days | 10% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5086 days | 10% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5086 days | 10% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5086 days | 10% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5116 days | 10% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5116 days | 10% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5208 days | 10% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5208 days | 10% |
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
-3.89% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 49 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 | -3.84% |
| 198 | -3.86% |
| 199 | -3.87% |
| 200 | -3.89% |
| 201 | -3.91% |
| 202 | -3.93% |
| 203 | -3.95% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.65% 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
94%
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.