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 | 1574 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 1879 days | 57% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 1942 days | 55% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 1971 days | 55% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2000 days | 54% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2061 days | 53% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2090 days | 31% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2092 days | 52% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2093 days | 52% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2151 days | 50% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2152 days | 51% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2152 days | 51% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2174 days | 50% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2212 days | 49% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2243 days | 49% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2243 days | 49% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2243 days | 49% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2273 days | 48% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2335 days | 46% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 2427 days | 44% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 2427 days | 44% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 2451 days | 43% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 2485 days | 43% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 2486 days | 23% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 2516 days | 42% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 2516 days | 42% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 2547 days | 42% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 2577 days | 41% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 2577 days | 40% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 2577 days | 41% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 2632 days | 40% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 2638 days | 39% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 2669 days | 39% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 2680 days | 38% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 2700 days | 38% |
| david john | 10/10 | 2700 days | 38% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 2761 days | 37% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 2844 days | 35% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 2850 days | 35% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 2850 days | 35% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 2851 days | 20% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 2912 days | 33% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 2942 days | 33% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 2962 days | 32% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3003 days | 31% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3034 days | 31% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3156 days | 27% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3217 days | 26% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3247 days | 26% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3247 days | 26% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3248 days | 26% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3248 days | 26% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3272 days | 15% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3278 days | 25% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3279 days | 25% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3279 days | 25% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3308 days | 24% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3308 days | 24% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3308 days | 24% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3309 days | 24% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3369 days | 23% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3369 days | 23% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3400 days | 22% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3400 days | 22% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 3423 days | 22% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 3522 days | 19% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 3522 days | 19% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 3553 days | 19% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 3612 days | 17% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 3612 days | 17% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 3643 days | 16% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 3673 days | 16% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 3673 days | 16% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 3765 days | 14% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 3766 days | 14% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 3797 days | 13% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 3797 days | 13% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 3888 days | 11% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 3905 days | 6% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 3947 days | 10% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 3972 days | 5% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 3978 days | 9% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 3978 days | 9% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 3978 days | 9% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 3978 days | 9% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 3978 days | 9% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 3987 days | 5% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4009 days | 8% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4009 days | 8% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4009 days | 8% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4025 days | 5% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4131 days | 6% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4131 days | 6% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4253 days | 3% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4253 days | 3% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4284 days | 2% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4312 days | 1% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4312 days | 1% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4312 days | 1% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4312 days | 1% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4343 days | 1% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4343 days | 1% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4374 days | 0% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4374 days | 0% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4374 days | 0% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4374 days | 0% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4404 days | 12% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 4435 days | 12% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 4465 days | 12% |
| marta | 10/10 | 4496 days | 12% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 4496 days | 12% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 4527 days | 12% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 4527 days | 12% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 4649 days | 12% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 4678 days | 12% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 4678 days | 12% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 4709 days | 12% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 4740 days | 12% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 4770 days | 12% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 4770 days | 12% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 4770 days | 12% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 4801 days | 12% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 4831 days | 12% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 4831 days | 12% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 4862 days | 12% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 4893 days | 12% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 4984 days | 12% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5015 days | 11% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5015 days | 11% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5043 days | 12% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5043 days | 11% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5105 days | 11% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5105 days | 11% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5105 days | 11% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5105 days | 12% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5135 days | 11% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5135 days | 12% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5227 days | 11% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5227 days | 12% |
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
-4.05% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 43 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 | -3.99% |
| 198 | -4.01% |
| 199 | -4.03% |
| 200 | -4.05% |
| 201 | -4.07% |
| 202 | -4.09% |
| 203 | -4.11% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.67% 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.