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 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.
![](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>)
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
81.45%
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 | 2704 days | 100% |
| Jeff Greenstreet | 9/10 | 2737 days | 98% |
| Julia Achatz | 5/10 | 2982 days | 62% |
| Daniela Hintermayr | 5/10 | 2996 days | 62% |
| Thomas Simeon | 8/10 | 3036 days | 78% |
| Kallan Mrozek | 8/10 | 3038 days | 78% |
| Tim | 7/10 | 3048 days | 73% |
| Jendrik | 7/10 | 3048 days | 73% |
| John Edwards | 8/10 | 3055 days | 77% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 3302 days | 62% |
| Benedikt Hang | 7/10 | 3310 days | 58% |
| Leon Grummer | 8/10 | 3322 days | 60% |
| Chris Cullen | 8/10 | 3327 days | 60% |
| Johannes Koch | 9/10 | 3331 days | 60% |
| Gerardo Furtado | 10/10 | 3334 days | 61% |
| Gabriela Cardoso | 10/10 | 3334 days | 61% |
| Chiara | 9/10 | 3336 days | 60% |
| Irene Marvelli | 7/10 | 3343 days | 56% |
| Mark White | 3/10 | 3343 days | 30% |
| Mikkel Pallesen | 6/10 | 3357 days | 50% |
| Maxima Buisan | 6/10 | 3358 days | 50% |
| Florian Mueller | 8/10 | 3362 days | 58% |
| Vincent | 5/10 | 3363 days | 44% |
| Tatiana | 10/10 | 3373 days | 58% |
| Christian Boudreau | 9/10 | 3390 days | 57% |
| Maria Ulitzsch | 6/10 | 3758 days | 28% |
| Leonie Moeller | 6/10 | 4026 days | 14% |
| Wolfgang and Christine | 8/10 | 4035 days | 16% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 9/10 | 4045 days | 16% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 4056 days | 15% |
| Serena Poggioli | 8/10 | 4071 days | 14% |
| Adrien Godeloup | 7/10 | 4105 days | 11% |
| hendrik king | 9/10 | 4291 days | 0% |
| Chantal Mortel | 7/10 | 4418 days | 25% |
| Maxime | 8/10 | 4425 days | 26% |
| Sebastian and Peter Beate | 10/10 | 4436 days | 27% |
| Timo Maschke | 10/10 | 4494 days | 27% |
| Jackie and Brian | 7/10 | 4495 days | 25% |
| Alexandra van den Brack | 8/10 | 4500 days | 26% |
| Benedicte and Mathilde Colas | 8/10 | 4506 days | 26% |
| a a | 9/10 | 4594 days | 27% |
| Virgil Anabel | 9/10 | 4774 days | 27% |
| Mike Breele | 8/10 | 4778 days | 26% |
| Barry Baily | 9/10 | 4791 days | 27% |
| Lucie Rutherfurd | 9/10 | 4805 days | 27% |
| Lotte Foged | 9/10 | 4805 days | 27% |
| Nina Bille-Knudsen | 9/10 | 4878 days | 27% |
| Jack van den Nieuwendyk | 8/10 | 4880 days | 26% |
| Gema | 8/10 | 5127 days | 26% |
| Barry Digby | 1/10 | 5131 days | 8% |
| Fam de Kruyf | 8/10 | 5141 days | 26% |
| Jon_and_Family | 9/10 | 5144 days | 27% |
| Isabel & Tillmann | 7/10 | 5147 days | 25% |
| Stephen Leitch | 8/10 | 5165 days | 26% |
| Richardr1 | 10/10 | 5427 days | 27% |
| Marcio Moretti | 9/10 | 5519 days | 27% |
| Fred Briggs | 9/10 | 5532 days | 27% |
| John Bost | 8/10 | 5532 days | 26% |
| willemrn | 7/10 | 5584 days | 25% |
| catdonjaime | 10/10 | 5592 days | 27% |
| Arran J | 10/10 | 5599 days | 27% |
| Anne Ford | 9/10 | 5601 days | 27% |
| David D S | 10/10 | 5607 days | 27% |
| Roman Hauri | 8/10 | 5611 days | 26% |
| Gensen | 7/10 | 5625 days | 25% |
| Suzanne | 8/10 | 5660 days | 26% |
| rita | 8/10 | 5708 days | 26% |
| arthurw | 10/10 | 5716 days | 27% |
| miniappleses | 9/10 | 5721 days | 27% |
| dieteru | 5/10 | 5843 days | 19% |
| LuukKarin | 8/10 | 5845 days | 26% |
| BrunoG | 9/10 | 5861 days | 27% |
| Pat | 8/10 | 5866 days | 26% |
| GH_Herrebrugh | 9/10 | 5883 days | 27% |
| EelcoK | 9/10 | 5885 days | 27% |
| Valerie | 9/10 | 5886 days | 27% |
| Christopher Gallaga | 1/10 | 5899 days | 8% |
| Bert | 9/10 | 5907 days | 27% |
| Ben | 10/10 | 6017 days | 27% |
| Michelle | 9/10 | 6017 days | 27% |
| Terneal King | 8/10 | 6081 days | 26% |
| Thomas Bachmann | 9/10 | 6091 days | 27% |
| Carmen | 10/10 | 6095 days | 27% |
| sasssy | 10/10 | 6117 days | 27% |
| Salome | 7/10 | 6151 days | 25% |
| Annie | 9/10 | 6213 days | 27% |
| Leanne Priestley | 10/10 | 6214 days | 27% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6220 days | 26% |
| Thibault | 9/10 | 6222 days | 27% |
| Denise | 10/10 | 6226 days | 27% |
| Liz | 9/10 | 6226 days | 27% |
| Yayami Kimura | 10/10 | 6226 days | 27% |
| Tom | 8/10 | 6227 days | 26% |
| Sanne Jonker | 7/10 | 6230 days | 25% |
| Corina | 9/10 | 6234 days | 27% |
| Klaus | 9/10 | 6234 days | 27% |
| Tina Daly | 8/10 | 6235 days | 26% |
| Jo and Tony | 9/10 | 6235 days | 27% |
| Smith | 7/10 | 6236 days | 25% |
| Trinkler | 9/10 | 6236 days | 27% |
| Roger Repolusk | 8/10 | 6240 days | 26% |
| Carmen Dolny | 10/10 | 6244 days | 27% |
| Robert and Carol Rodgers | 10/10 | 6248 days | 27% |
| Roger and Heather Smith | 7/10 | 6248 days | 25% |
| Katharina | 8/10 | 6255 days | 26% |
| Jim Curley | 10/10 | 6255 days | 27% |
| Reina Lohaye | 7/10 | 6258 days | 25% |
| Tim | 5/10 | 6283 days | 19% |
| Mum! | 8/10 | 6285 days | 26% |
| Nathalie Meunier | 9/10 | 6286 days | 27% |
| Heike Julia | 8/10 | 6290 days | 26% |
| Andrew Porter | 9/10 | 6291 days | 27% |
| Kay | 7/10 | 6314 days | 25% |
| Ann Westmacott | 8/10 | 6317 days | 26% |
| Abbey | 8/10 | 6327 days | 26% |
| Samuel Brejeon | 7/10 | 6328 days | 25% |
| Tom Clements | 7/10 | 6333 days | 25% |
| Christin | 6/10 | 6333 days | 22% |
| Elaine | 10/10 | 6564 days | 27% |
| Yuki | 9/10 | 6567 days | 27% |
| Paola | 7/10 | 6584 days | 25% |
| Delgroot | 9/10 | 6601 days | 27% |
| Arjan | 7/10 | 6604 days | 25% |
| Lucy | 8/10 | 6606 days | 26% |
| delgroot | 8/10 | 6608 days | 26% |
| Frauke | 7/10 | 6615 days | 25% |
| Bernt | 6/10 | 6615 days | 22% |
| purplekat99 | 10/10 | 6633 days | 27% |
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
-3.75% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 60 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 | -3.70% |
| 198 | -3.72% |
| 199 | -3.74% |
| 200 | -3.75% |
| 201 | -3.77% |
| 202 | -3.79% |
| 203 | -3.81% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
3.69% 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.