Hey, 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 The Kauri Museum.
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.
![](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg width="300" height="300" viewBox="0 0 300 300" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><rect id="bg" width="300" height="300" fill="rgb(46,196,145)" /><path d="m 150 605 Q 206 94 -305 150 Q 206 206 150 -305 Q 94 206 605 150 Q 94 94 150 605 z" fill="rgb(70,136,0)" /><path d="m 150 515 Q 296 4 -215 150 Q 296 296 150 -215 Q 4 296 515 150 Q 4 4 150 515 z" fill="rgb(185,119,255)" /><path d="m 150 176 Q 165 135 124 150 Q 165 165 150 124 Q 135 165 176 150 Q 135 135 150 176 z" fill="rgb(209,59,110)" /></svg>)
The Kauri Museum
Valid Reviews
79 Valid Reviews
The The Kauri Museum experience has a total of 79 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 79 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 22 |
|
28% |
| 9/10 | 25 |
|
32% |
| 8/10 | 20 |
|
25% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
6% |
| 6/10 | 3 |
|
4% |
| 5/10 | 3 |
|
4% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
85.70% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the The Kauri Museum valid reviews is 85.70% and is based on 79 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
62 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 79 valid reviews, the experience has 62 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 62 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 15 |
|
24% |
| 9/10 | 20 |
|
32% |
| 8/10 | 16 |
|
26% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
8% |
| 6/10 | 3 |
|
5% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
84.68% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the The Kauri Museum face-to-face reviews is 84.68% and is based on 62 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
86.42%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Andrea Mueller | 9/10 | 2967 days | 100% |
| Evelyn Rloeh | 8/10 | 3072 days | 91% |
| Rik van der Niet | 9/10 | 3074 days | 92% |
| Michelle Smit | 9/10 | 3181 days | 83% |
| Felix Sternke | 7/10 | 3365 days | 64% |
| Jasper van den Weyde | 8/10 | 3747 days | 39% |
| Sara Clausen | 8/10 | 4072 days | 13% |
| Julia Ahrend | 5/10 | 4128 days | 5% |
| Mark Hayes | 10/10 | 4247 days | 0% |
| Sue Bahr | 10/10 | 4490 days | 30% |
| Ingrid | 7/10 | 4503 days | 27% |
| Jan Sjoerdtje | 9/10 | 4512 days | 29% |
| Leo | 9/10 | 4525 days | 29% |
| Kerstin | 8/10 | 4536 days | 29% |
| KDS_Holiday | 8/10 | 4582 days | 29% |
| Markus Frei | 9/10 | 4782 days | 29% |
| Heiner Reinecke | 9/10 | 4788 days | 29% |
| Melinda Moir | 8/10 | 4802 days | 29% |
| Martin Beuker | 8/10 | 4802 days | 29% |
| Richard Harvey | 9/10 | 4805 days | 29% |
| Frans | 7/10 | 4808 days | 27% |
| Merlyn | 8/10 | 4809 days | 29% |
| Andreas Kofod-Hansen | 6/10 | 4810 days | 24% |
| Charlotte | 9/10 | 4811 days | 29% |
| Wolfgang Beute | 10/10 | 4813 days | 30% |
| John Jacobs | 10/10 | 4853 days | 30% |
| Jack van den Nieuwendyk | 9/10 | 4898 days | 29% |
| Ron & Hannah de Reuver | 8/10 | 4901 days | 29% |
| Herman Plasman | 8/10 | 4902 days | 29% |
| Rudlinger | 10/10 | 4904 days | 30% |
| rgoodwi3 | 9/10 | 5040 days | 29% |
| Robin | 10/10 | 5101 days | 30% |
| wolfangel | 10/10 | 5131 days | 30% |
| De Groot | 9/10 | 5146 days | 29% |
| Michael Simmang | 10/10 | 5150 days | 30% |
| Krabbe | 8/10 | 5153 days | 29% |
| Amanda Neall | 10/10 | 5154 days | 30% |
| Jan Visser | 8/10 | 5162 days | 29% |
| Mirka Tinterova | 10/10 | 5164 days | 30% |
| John Allen | 9/10 | 5185 days | 29% |
| Roach | 10/10 | 5190 days | 30% |
| Matt | 8/10 | 5275 days | 29% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 5313 days | 29% |
| Monica Askew | 10/10 | 5444 days | 30% |
| Mike Howe | 9/10 | 5466 days | 29% |
| AlisonB | 10/10 | 5496 days | 30% |
| Ivo Braakhuis | 8/10 | 5535 days | 29% |
| M and H Lunn | 9/10 | 5536 days | 29% |
| Helen Power | 9/10 | 5550 days | 29% |
| Ake Erlandsson | 10/10 | 5551 days | 30% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 5554 days | 29% |
| snodge | 9/10 | 5555 days | 29% |
| Bernard Misfud | 9/10 | 5628 days | 29% |
| KYinNZ | 8/10 | 5770 days | 29% |
| straw64 | 5/10 | 5831 days | 20% |
| HerbertH | 8/10 | 5853 days | 29% |
| Zeeman | 9/10 | 5880 days | 29% |
| MargaretH | 10/10 | 5896 days | 30% |
| Ian S | 5/10 | 5910 days | 20% |
| Oliver | 4/10 | 5925 days | 16% |
| Kern | 10/10 | 5945 days | 30% |
| bobmcg | 9/10 | 5974 days | 29% |
| Tony | 9/10 | 5978 days | 29% |
| Liz | 9/10 | 6000 days | 29% |
| Johannes Kerner | 8/10 | 6010 days | 29% |
| Jo and Tony | 10/10 | 6253 days | 30% |
| helga | 10/10 | 6254 days | 30% |
| David Buckley | 10/10 | 6261 days | 30% |
| Nathalie Meunier | 6/10 | 6304 days | 24% |
| David | 10/10 | 6307 days | 30% |
| Lisbeth Johansson | 10/10 | 6463 days | 30% |
| Stef | 7/10 | 6571 days | 27% |
| AndiJorgensen | 10/10 | 6584 days | 30% |
| Nancy Bill | 8/10 | 6585 days | 29% |
| Shirley | 7/10 | 6585 days | 27% |
| Denise | 6/10 | 6585 days | 24% |
| Bas Marieke | 8/10 | 6602 days | 29% |
| Rietveld | 9/10 | 6619 days | 29% |
| beesom | 9/10 | 6627 days | 29% |
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 The Kauri Museum experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-3.40% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 67 days. However the The Kauri Museum 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 The Kauri Museum experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -3.35% |
| 198 | -3.37% |
| 199 | -3.38% |
| 200 | -3.40% |
| 201 | -3.42% |
| 202 | -3.43% |
| 203 | -3.45% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.24% 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
85%
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.