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
86.40%
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 | 2944 days | 100% |
| Evelyn Rloeh | 8/10 | 3049 days | 91% |
| Rik van der Niet | 9/10 | 3051 days | 92% |
| Michelle Smit | 9/10 | 3158 days | 83% |
| Felix Sternke | 7/10 | 3342 days | 64% |
| Jasper van den Weyde | 8/10 | 3724 days | 38% |
| Sara Clausen | 8/10 | 4049 days | 13% |
| Julia Ahrend | 5/10 | 4105 days | 4% |
| Mark Hayes | 10/10 | 4224 days | 0% |
| Sue Bahr | 10/10 | 4467 days | 28% |
| Ingrid | 7/10 | 4480 days | 25% |
| Jan Sjoerdtje | 9/10 | 4489 days | 28% |
| Leo | 9/10 | 4502 days | 28% |
| Kerstin | 8/10 | 4513 days | 27% |
| KDS_Holiday | 8/10 | 4559 days | 27% |
| Markus Frei | 9/10 | 4759 days | 28% |
| Heiner Reinecke | 9/10 | 4765 days | 28% |
| Melinda Moir | 8/10 | 4779 days | 27% |
| Martin Beuker | 8/10 | 4779 days | 27% |
| Richard Harvey | 9/10 | 4782 days | 28% |
| Frans | 7/10 | 4785 days | 25% |
| Merlyn | 8/10 | 4786 days | 27% |
| Andreas Kofod-Hansen | 6/10 | 4787 days | 22% |
| Charlotte | 9/10 | 4788 days | 28% |
| Wolfgang Beute | 10/10 | 4790 days | 28% |
| John Jacobs | 10/10 | 4830 days | 28% |
| Jack van den Nieuwendyk | 9/10 | 4875 days | 28% |
| Ron & Hannah de Reuver | 8/10 | 4878 days | 27% |
| Herman Plasman | 8/10 | 4879 days | 27% |
| Rudlinger | 10/10 | 4881 days | 28% |
| rgoodwi3 | 9/10 | 5017 days | 28% |
| Robin | 10/10 | 5078 days | 28% |
| wolfangel | 10/10 | 5108 days | 28% |
| De Groot | 9/10 | 5123 days | 28% |
| Michael Simmang | 10/10 | 5127 days | 28% |
| Krabbe | 8/10 | 5130 days | 27% |
| Amanda Neall | 10/10 | 5131 days | 28% |
| Jan Visser | 8/10 | 5139 days | 27% |
| Mirka Tinterova | 10/10 | 5141 days | 28% |
| John Allen | 9/10 | 5162 days | 28% |
| Roach | 10/10 | 5167 days | 28% |
| Matt | 8/10 | 5252 days | 27% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 5290 days | 27% |
| Monica Askew | 10/10 | 5421 days | 28% |
| Mike Howe | 9/10 | 5443 days | 28% |
| AlisonB | 10/10 | 5473 days | 28% |
| Ivo Braakhuis | 8/10 | 5512 days | 27% |
| M and H Lunn | 9/10 | 5513 days | 28% |
| Helen Power | 9/10 | 5527 days | 28% |
| Ake Erlandsson | 10/10 | 5528 days | 28% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 5531 days | 28% |
| snodge | 9/10 | 5532 days | 28% |
| Bernard Misfud | 9/10 | 5605 days | 28% |
| KYinNZ | 8/10 | 5747 days | 27% |
| straw64 | 5/10 | 5808 days | 18% |
| HerbertH | 8/10 | 5830 days | 27% |
| Zeeman | 9/10 | 5857 days | 28% |
| MargaretH | 10/10 | 5873 days | 28% |
| Ian S | 5/10 | 5887 days | 18% |
| Oliver | 4/10 | 5902 days | 14% |
| Kern | 10/10 | 5922 days | 28% |
| bobmcg | 9/10 | 5951 days | 28% |
| Tony | 9/10 | 5955 days | 28% |
| Liz | 9/10 | 5977 days | 28% |
| Johannes Kerner | 8/10 | 5987 days | 27% |
| Jo and Tony | 10/10 | 6230 days | 28% |
| helga | 10/10 | 6231 days | 28% |
| David Buckley | 10/10 | 6238 days | 28% |
| Nathalie Meunier | 6/10 | 6281 days | 22% |
| David | 10/10 | 6284 days | 28% |
| Lisbeth Johansson | 10/10 | 6440 days | 28% |
| Stef | 7/10 | 6548 days | 25% |
| AndiJorgensen | 10/10 | 6561 days | 28% |
| Nancy Bill | 8/10 | 6562 days | 27% |
| Shirley | 7/10 | 6562 days | 25% |
| Denise | 6/10 | 6562 days | 22% |
| Bas Marieke | 8/10 | 6579 days | 27% |
| Rietveld | 9/10 | 6596 days | 28% |
| beesom | 9/10 | 6604 days | 28% |
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
-3.84% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 59 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 | -3.78% |
| 198 | -3.80% |
| 199 | -3.82% |
| 200 | -3.84% |
| 201 | -3.86% |
| 202 | -3.88% |
| 203 | -3.90% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.35% 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.