Hi, 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 Auckland 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.

CC
Cymen Crick's avatar

Cymen Crick

Rankers Owner

Auckland Museum

Valid Reviews

128 Valid Reviews

The Auckland Museum experience has a total of 128 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 128 valid reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 21
16%
9/10 37
29%
8/10 35
27%
7/10 21
16%
6/10 6
5%
5/10 5
4%
4/10 0
0%
3/10 1
1%
2/10 0
0%
1/10 2
2%

80.94% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Auckland Museum valid reviews is 80.94% and is based on 128 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

116 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 128 valid reviews, the experience has 116 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.

Below is the distribution of ratings for the 116 face-to-face reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 18
16%
9/10 32
28%
8/10 32
28%
7/10 21
18%
6/10 6
5%
5/10 5
4%
4/10 0
0%
3/10 1
1%
2/10 0
0%
1/10 1
1%

80.69% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Auckland Museum face-to-face reviews is 80.69% and is based on 116 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.

Weighted Average

81.40%

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
Daniel Faasser 9/10 2666 days 100%
Jeff Greenstreet 9/10 2700 days 98%
Julia Achatz 5/10 2944 days 62%
Daniela Hintermayr 5/10 2958 days 61%
Thomas Simeon 8/10 2998 days 78%
Kallan Mrozek 8/10 3000 days 78%
Tim 7/10 3010 days 73%
Jendrik 7/10 3010 days 73%
John Edwards 8/10 3017 days 77%
Julia 9/10 3264 days 62%
Benedikt Hang 7/10 3272 days 58%
Leon Grummer 8/10 3284 days 60%
Chris Cullen 8/10 3289 days 60%
Johannes Koch 9/10 3293 days 60%
Gerardo Furtado 10/10 3296 days 61%
Gabriela Cardoso 10/10 3296 days 61%
Chiara 9/10 3298 days 60%
Irene Marvelli 7/10 3305 days 56%
Mark White 3/10 3305 days 29%
Mikkel Pallesen 6/10 3319 days 50%
Maxima Buisan 6/10 3320 days 50%
Florian Mueller 8/10 3324 days 58%
Vincent 5/10 3325 days 43%
Tatiana 10/10 3335 days 59%
Christian Boudreau 9/10 3352 days 57%
Maria Ulitzsch 6/10 3720 days 28%
Leonie Moeller 6/10 3988 days 13%
Wolfgang and Christine 8/10 3997 days 16%
Agathe Dupuis 9/10 4007 days 16%
Sarah 8/10 4018 days 15%
Serena Poggioli 8/10 4033 days 14%
Adrien Godeloup 7/10 4067 days 11%
hendrik king 9/10 4253 days 0%
Chantal Mortel 7/10 4380 days 22%
Maxime 8/10 4387 days 24%
Sebastian and Peter Beate 10/10 4398 days 25%
Timo Maschke 10/10 4456 days 25%
Jackie and Brian 7/10 4457 days 22%
Alexandra van den Brack 8/10 4462 days 24%
Benedicte and Mathilde Colas 8/10 4468 days 24%
a a 9/10 4556 days 24%
Virgil Anabel 9/10 4736 days 24%
Mike Breele 8/10 4740 days 24%
Barry Baily 9/10 4753 days 24%
Lucie Rutherfurd 9/10 4767 days 24%
Lotte Foged 9/10 4767 days 24%
Nina Bille-Knudsen 9/10 4840 days 24%
Jack van den Nieuwendyk 8/10 4842 days 24%
Gema 8/10 5089 days 24%
Barry Digby 1/10 5093 days 5%
Fam de Kruyf 8/10 5103 days 24%
Jon_and_Family 9/10 5106 days 24%
Isabel & Tillmann 7/10 5109 days 22%
Stephen Leitch 8/10 5127 days 24%
Richardr1 10/10 5389 days 25%
Marcio Moretti 9/10 5481 days 24%
Fred Briggs 9/10 5494 days 24%
John Bost 8/10 5494 days 24%
willemrn 7/10 5546 days 22%
catdonjaime 10/10 5554 days 25%
Arran J 10/10 5561 days 25%
Anne Ford 9/10 5563 days 24%
David D S 10/10 5569 days 25%
Roman Hauri 8/10 5573 days 24%
Gensen 7/10 5587 days 22%
Suzanne 8/10 5622 days 24%
rita 8/10 5670 days 24%
arthurw 10/10 5678 days 25%
miniappleses 9/10 5683 days 24%
dieteru 5/10 5805 days 17%
LuukKarin 8/10 5807 days 24%
BrunoG 9/10 5823 days 24%
Pat 8/10 5829 days 24%
GH_Herrebrugh 9/10 5845 days 24%
EelcoK 9/10 5847 days 24%
Valerie 9/10 5849 days 24%
Christopher Gallaga 1/10 5862 days 5%
Bert 9/10 5870 days 24%
Ben 10/10 5980 days 25%
Michelle 9/10 5980 days 24%
Terneal King 8/10 6044 days 24%
Thomas Bachmann 9/10 6054 days 24%
Carmen 10/10 6058 days 25%
sasssy 10/10 6079 days 25%
Salome 7/10 6113 days 22%
Annie 9/10 6175 days 24%
Leanne Priestley 10/10 6176 days 25%
Anna 8/10 6182 days 24%
Thibault 9/10 6184 days 24%
Denise 10/10 6188 days 25%
Liz 9/10 6188 days 24%
Yayami Kimura 10/10 6188 days 25%
Tom 8/10 6189 days 24%
Sanne Jonker 7/10 6192 days 22%
Corina 9/10 6196 days 24%
Klaus 9/10 6196 days 24%
Tina Daly 8/10 6197 days 24%
Jo and Tony 9/10 6197 days 24%
Smith 7/10 6198 days 22%
Trinkler 9/10 6198 days 24%
Roger Repolusk 8/10 6202 days 24%
Carmen Dolny 10/10 6206 days 25%
Robert and Carol Rodgers 10/10 6210 days 25%
Roger and Heather Smith 7/10 6210 days 22%
Katharina 8/10 6217 days 24%
Jim Curley 10/10 6217 days 25%
Reina Lohaye 7/10 6220 days 22%
Tim 5/10 6245 days 17%
Mum! 8/10 6247 days 24%
Nathalie Meunier 9/10 6248 days 24%
Heike Julia 8/10 6252 days 24%
Andrew Porter 9/10 6253 days 24%
Kay 7/10 6276 days 22%
Ann Westmacott 8/10 6279 days 24%
Abbey 8/10 6289 days 24%
Samuel Brejeon 7/10 6290 days 22%
Tom Clements 7/10 6295 days 22%
Christin 6/10 6295 days 20%
Elaine 10/10 6526 days 25%
Yuki 9/10 6529 days 24%
Paola 7/10 6546 days 22%
Delgroot 9/10 6563 days 24%
Arjan 7/10 6566 days 22%
Lucy 8/10 6568 days 24%
delgroot 8/10 6570 days 24%
Frauke 7/10 6577 days 22%
Bernt 6/10 6577 days 20%
purplekat99 10/10 6595 days 25%

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 Auckland Museum experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.

Recent Reviews Adjustment

-4.14% Adjustment

There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 53 days. However the Auckland 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 Auckland Museum experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.

Days Adjustment
197 -4.08%
198 -4.10%
199 -4.12%
200 -4.14%
201 -4.16%
202 -4.18%
203 -4.20%

Balancing Adjustment

3.83% 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

81%

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.