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 Glacier Hot Pools.
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.
Glacier Hot Pools
Valid Reviews
40 Valid Reviews
The Glacier Hot Pools experience has a total of 41 reviews. There are 40 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 1 invalid review 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 40 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 10 |
|
25% |
| 9/10 | 7 |
|
18% |
| 8/10 | 11 |
|
28% |
| 7/10 | 3 |
|
8% |
| 6/10 | 3 |
|
8% |
| 5/10 | 3 |
|
8% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
78.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Glacier Hot Pools valid reviews is 78.00% and is based on 40 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
30 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 40 valid reviews, the experience has 30 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 30 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 6 |
|
20% |
| 9/10 | 5 |
|
17% |
| 8/10 | 9 |
|
30% |
| 7/10 | 3 |
|
10% |
| 6/10 | 3 |
|
10% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
7% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
77.33% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Glacier Hot Pools face-to-face reviews is 77.33% and is based on 30 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
83.23%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arlene | 10/10 | 1387 days | 100% |
| Paula G | 5/10 | 2118 days | 20% |
| Jessica and Jonny Pollard | 9/10 | 2759 days | 19% |
| Monica Francia | 4/10 | 2799 days | 12% |
| Claudia Hobbs | 7/10 | 2810 days | 17% |
| Flrent | 5/10 | 2810 days | 14% |
| Hailey S | 10/10 | 2872 days | 18% |
| Helena Bond | 8/10 | 3128 days | 14% |
| James Esele | 9/10 | 3210 days | 13% |
| Michele | 9/10 | 3823 days | 6% |
| Julian Zeissler | 6/10 | 3846 days | 5% |
| Antoine | 8/10 | 3863 days | 5% |
| Fred and Carin | 8/10 | 4298 days | 0% |
| Danielle Roberts | 8/10 | 4400 days | 5% |
| Vlutters | 8/10 | 4589 days | 5% |
| Ian Bailey | 6/10 | 4593 days | 4% |
| Seth & Carla | 10/10 | 4598 days | 5% |
| Koster | 2/10 | 4599 days | 2% |
| Andreas & Leonie Fehr | 9/10 | 4605 days | 5% |
| Lynn Robinson | 10/10 | 4605 days | 5% |
| scottee | 8/10 | 4889 days | 5% |
| Mariette Salden | 8/10 | 4923 days | 5% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 7/10 | 4942 days | 5% |
| Roland Berger | 8/10 | 4943 days | 5% |
| Dwong1959 | 1/10 | 4950 days | 2% |
| Matthias | 10/10 | 4967 days | 5% |
| Nataly Loewidt | 7/10 | 4970 days | 5% |
| ELLY186 | 10/10 | 5070 days | 5% |
| KAA | 10/10 | 5101 days | 5% |
| Mary Van | 10/10 | 5101 days | 5% |
| Risch & Seybold | 10/10 | 5297 days | 5% |
| Jana Steve | 8/10 | 5309 days | 5% |
| Sally Hall | 5/10 | 5363 days | 4% |
| Kyle Riseley | 10/10 | 5416 days | 5% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5514 days | 5% |
| Joanna Harrnon | 9/10 | 5648 days | 5% |
| Conrad Duden | 9/10 | 5649 days | 5% |
| marianneb | 8/10 | 5649 days | 5% |
| Denys | 6/10 | 5653 days | 4% |
| AdelineC | 9/10 | 5684 days | 5% |
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 Glacier Hot Pools experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-3.01% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 75 days. However the Glacier Hot Pools 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 Glacier Hot Pools experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -2.96% |
| 198 | -2.98% |
| 199 | -2.99% |
| 200 | -3.01% |
| 201 | -3.02% |
| 202 | -3.04% |
| 203 | -3.05% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.94% 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
83%
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.