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.
![](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
81.46%
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 | 2711 days | 100% |
| Jeff Greenstreet | 9/10 | 2745 days | 98% |
| Julia Achatz | 5/10 | 2989 days | 62% |
| Daniela Hintermayr | 5/10 | 3003 days | 62% |
| Thomas Simeon | 8/10 | 3043 days | 78% |
| Kallan Mrozek | 8/10 | 3045 days | 78% |
| Tim | 7/10 | 3055 days | 73% |
| Jendrik | 7/10 | 3055 days | 73% |
| John Edwards | 8/10 | 3062 days | 77% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 3309 days | 62% |
| Benedikt Hang | 7/10 | 3317 days | 58% |
| Leon Grummer | 8/10 | 3329 days | 60% |
| Chris Cullen | 8/10 | 3334 days | 60% |
| Johannes Koch | 9/10 | 3338 days | 60% |
| Gerardo Furtado | 10/10 | 3341 days | 61% |
| Gabriela Cardoso | 10/10 | 3341 days | 61% |
| Chiara | 9/10 | 3343 days | 60% |
| Irene Marvelli | 7/10 | 3350 days | 56% |
| Mark White | 3/10 | 3350 days | 31% |
| Mikkel Pallesen | 6/10 | 3364 days | 51% |
| Maxima Buisan | 6/10 | 3365 days | 50% |
| Florian Mueller | 8/10 | 3369 days | 58% |
| Vincent | 5/10 | 3370 days | 44% |
| Tatiana | 10/10 | 3380 days | 58% |
| Christian Boudreau | 9/10 | 3397 days | 57% |
| Maria Ulitzsch | 6/10 | 3765 days | 29% |
| Leonie Moeller | 6/10 | 4033 days | 14% |
| Wolfgang and Christine | 8/10 | 4042 days | 16% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 9/10 | 4052 days | 16% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 4063 days | 15% |
| Serena Poggioli | 8/10 | 4078 days | 14% |
| Adrien Godeloup | 7/10 | 4112 days | 11% |
| hendrik king | 9/10 | 4298 days | 0% |
| Chantal Mortel | 7/10 | 4425 days | 25% |
| Maxime | 8/10 | 4432 days | 27% |
| Sebastian and Peter Beate | 10/10 | 4443 days | 27% |
| Timo Maschke | 10/10 | 4501 days | 27% |
| Jackie and Brian | 7/10 | 4502 days | 25% |
| Alexandra van den Brack | 8/10 | 4507 days | 27% |
| Benedicte and Mathilde Colas | 8/10 | 4513 days | 27% |
| a a | 9/10 | 4601 days | 27% |
| Virgil Anabel | 9/10 | 4781 days | 27% |
| Mike Breele | 8/10 | 4785 days | 27% |
| Barry Baily | 9/10 | 4798 days | 27% |
| Lucie Rutherfurd | 9/10 | 4812 days | 27% |
| Lotte Foged | 9/10 | 4812 days | 27% |
| Nina Bille-Knudsen | 9/10 | 4885 days | 27% |
| Jack van den Nieuwendyk | 8/10 | 4887 days | 27% |
| Gema | 8/10 | 5134 days | 27% |
| Barry Digby | 1/10 | 5138 days | 8% |
| Fam de Kruyf | 8/10 | 5148 days | 27% |
| Jon_and_Family | 9/10 | 5151 days | 27% |
| Isabel & Tillmann | 7/10 | 5154 days | 25% |
| Stephen Leitch | 8/10 | 5172 days | 27% |
| Richardr1 | 10/10 | 5434 days | 27% |
| Marcio Moretti | 9/10 | 5526 days | 27% |
| Fred Briggs | 9/10 | 5539 days | 27% |
| John Bost | 8/10 | 5539 days | 27% |
| willemrn | 7/10 | 5591 days | 25% |
| catdonjaime | 10/10 | 5599 days | 27% |
| Arran J | 10/10 | 5606 days | 27% |
| Anne Ford | 9/10 | 5608 days | 27% |
| David D S | 10/10 | 5614 days | 27% |
| Roman Hauri | 8/10 | 5618 days | 27% |
| Gensen | 7/10 | 5632 days | 25% |
| Suzanne | 8/10 | 5667 days | 27% |
| rita | 8/10 | 5715 days | 27% |
| arthurw | 10/10 | 5723 days | 27% |
| miniappleses | 9/10 | 5728 days | 27% |
| dieteru | 5/10 | 5850 days | 20% |
| LuukKarin | 8/10 | 5852 days | 27% |
| BrunoG | 9/10 | 5868 days | 27% |
| Pat | 8/10 | 5873 days | 27% |
| GH_Herrebrugh | 9/10 | 5890 days | 27% |
| EelcoK | 9/10 | 5892 days | 27% |
| Valerie | 9/10 | 5893 days | 27% |
| Christopher Gallaga | 1/10 | 5906 days | 8% |
| Bert | 9/10 | 5914 days | 27% |
| Ben | 10/10 | 6024 days | 27% |
| Michelle | 9/10 | 6024 days | 27% |
| Terneal King | 8/10 | 6088 days | 27% |
| Thomas Bachmann | 9/10 | 6098 days | 27% |
| Carmen | 10/10 | 6102 days | 27% |
| sasssy | 10/10 | 6124 days | 27% |
| Salome | 7/10 | 6158 days | 25% |
| Annie | 9/10 | 6220 days | 27% |
| Leanne Priestley | 10/10 | 6221 days | 27% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6227 days | 27% |
| Thibault | 9/10 | 6229 days | 27% |
| Denise | 10/10 | 6233 days | 27% |
| Liz | 9/10 | 6233 days | 27% |
| Yayami Kimura | 10/10 | 6233 days | 27% |
| Tom | 8/10 | 6234 days | 27% |
| Sanne Jonker | 7/10 | 6237 days | 25% |
| Corina | 9/10 | 6241 days | 27% |
| Klaus | 9/10 | 6241 days | 27% |
| Tina Daly | 8/10 | 6242 days | 27% |
| Jo and Tony | 9/10 | 6242 days | 27% |
| Smith | 7/10 | 6243 days | 25% |
| Trinkler | 9/10 | 6243 days | 27% |
| Roger Repolusk | 8/10 | 6247 days | 27% |
| Carmen Dolny | 10/10 | 6251 days | 27% |
| Robert and Carol Rodgers | 10/10 | 6255 days | 27% |
| Roger and Heather Smith | 7/10 | 6255 days | 25% |
| Katharina | 8/10 | 6262 days | 27% |
| Jim Curley | 10/10 | 6262 days | 27% |
| Reina Lohaye | 7/10 | 6265 days | 25% |
| Tim | 5/10 | 6290 days | 20% |
| Mum! | 8/10 | 6292 days | 27% |
| Nathalie Meunier | 9/10 | 6293 days | 27% |
| Heike Julia | 8/10 | 6297 days | 27% |
| Andrew Porter | 9/10 | 6298 days | 27% |
| Kay | 7/10 | 6321 days | 25% |
| Ann Westmacott | 8/10 | 6324 days | 27% |
| Abbey | 8/10 | 6334 days | 27% |
| Samuel Brejeon | 7/10 | 6335 days | 25% |
| Tom Clements | 7/10 | 6340 days | 25% |
| Christin | 6/10 | 6340 days | 23% |
| Elaine | 10/10 | 6571 days | 27% |
| Yuki | 9/10 | 6574 days | 27% |
| Paola | 7/10 | 6591 days | 25% |
| Delgroot | 9/10 | 6608 days | 27% |
| Arjan | 7/10 | 6611 days | 25% |
| Lucy | 8/10 | 6613 days | 27% |
| delgroot | 8/10 | 6615 days | 27% |
| Frauke | 7/10 | 6622 days | 25% |
| Bernt | 6/10 | 6622 days | 23% |
| purplekat99 | 10/10 | 6640 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
-3.63% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 62 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 | -3.57% |
| 198 | -3.59% |
| 199 | -3.61% |
| 200 | -3.63% |
| 201 | -3.64% |
| 202 | -3.66% |
| 203 | -3.68% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
3.64% 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.