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
96.77%
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 | 1511 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 1816 days | 47% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 1879 days | 46% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 1908 days | 45% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 1937 days | 45% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 1998 days | 44% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2027 days | 26% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2029 days | 43% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2030 days | 43% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2088 days | 42% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2089 days | 42% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2089 days | 42% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2111 days | 42% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2149 days | 41% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2180 days | 40% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2180 days | 40% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2180 days | 40% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2210 days | 40% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2272 days | 39% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 2364 days | 37% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 2364 days | 37% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 2388 days | 36% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 2422 days | 36% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 2423 days | 20% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 2453 days | 35% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 2453 days | 35% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 2484 days | 35% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 2514 days | 34% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 2514 days | 34% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 2514 days | 34% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 2569 days | 33% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 2575 days | 33% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 2606 days | 33% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 2617 days | 32% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 2637 days | 32% |
| david john | 10/10 | 2637 days | 32% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 2698 days | 31% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 2781 days | 29% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 2787 days | 29% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 2787 days | 29% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 2788 days | 17% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 2849 days | 28% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 2879 days | 28% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 2899 days | 27% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2940 days | 26% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 2971 days | 26% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3093 days | 23% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3154 days | 22% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3184 days | 22% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3184 days | 22% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3185 days | 22% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3185 days | 22% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3209 days | 12% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3215 days | 21% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3216 days | 21% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3216 days | 21% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3245 days | 20% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3245 days | 21% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3245 days | 21% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3246 days | 20% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3306 days | 20% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3306 days | 19% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3337 days | 19% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3337 days | 19% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 3360 days | 19% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 3459 days | 17% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 3459 days | 17% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 3490 days | 16% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 3549 days | 15% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 3549 days | 15% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 3580 days | 14% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 3610 days | 14% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 3610 days | 14% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 3702 days | 12% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 3703 days | 12% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 3734 days | 12% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 3734 days | 12% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 3825 days | 10% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 3842 days | 6% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 3884 days | 9% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 3909 days | 5% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 3915 days | 8% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 3915 days | 8% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 3915 days | 8% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 3915 days | 8% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 3915 days | 8% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 3924 days | 5% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 3946 days | 8% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 3946 days | 8% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 3946 days | 8% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 3962 days | 4% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4068 days | 6% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4068 days | 6% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4190 days | 3% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4190 days | 3% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4221 days | 3% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4249 days | 2% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4249 days | 2% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4249 days | 2% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4249 days | 2% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4280 days | 2% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4280 days | 2% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4311 days | 1% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4311 days | 1% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4311 days | 1% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4311 days | 1% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4341 days | 1% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 4372 days | 0% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 4402 days | 9% |
| marta | 10/10 | 4433 days | 9% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 4433 days | 9% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 4464 days | 9% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 4464 days | 9% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 4586 days | 9% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 4615 days | 9% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 4615 days | 9% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 4646 days | 9% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 4677 days | 9% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 4707 days | 9% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 4707 days | 9% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 4707 days | 9% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 4738 days | 9% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 4768 days | 9% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 4768 days | 9% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 4799 days | 9% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 4830 days | 9% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 4921 days | 9% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 4952 days | 9% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 4952 days | 9% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 4980 days | 9% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 4980 days | 9% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5042 days | 9% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5042 days | 9% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5042 days | 9% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5042 days | 9% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5072 days | 9% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5072 days | 9% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5164 days | 9% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5164 days | 9% |
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
-3.05% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 74 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 | -3.01% |
| 198 | -3.02% |
| 199 | -3.04% |
| 200 | -3.05% |
| 201 | -3.07% |
| 202 | -3.08% |
| 203 | -3.10% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.56% 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.