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 White Island Tours.
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>)
White Island Tours
Valid Reviews
129 Valid Reviews
The White Island Tours experience has a total of 129 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 129 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 48 |
|
37% |
| 9/10 | 42 |
|
33% |
| 8/10 | 19 |
|
15% |
| 7/10 | 17 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
88.29% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the White Island Tours valid reviews is 88.29% and is based on 129 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
105 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 129 valid reviews, the experience has 105 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 105 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 34 |
|
32% |
| 9/10 | 35 |
|
33% |
| 8/10 | 18 |
|
17% |
| 7/10 | 16 |
|
15% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
87.24% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the White Island Tours face-to-face reviews is 87.24% and is based on 105 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
89.39%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matthew Mutimer | 10/10 | 2074 days | 100% |
| Amanda Walden | 10/10 | 2957 days | 58% |
| Monique Pos | 9/10 | 3047 days | 53% |
| Alison Egan-Jones | 9/10 | 3077 days | 52% |
| Sylvain Schiber | 9/10 | 3077 days | 52% |
| Sylvain Chanton | 10/10 | 3082 days | 52% |
| Julian Gury | 8/10 | 3090 days | 50% |
| R. Damen | 9/10 | 3108 days | 50% |
| Michelle Smit | 10/10 | 3169 days | 48% |
| Gesa Roemer | 8/10 | 3298 days | 41% |
| Anais Roux | 10/10 | 3303 days | 42% |
| Luca Staudt | 8/10 | 3322 days | 40% |
| Florian Bisault | 7/10 | 3323 days | 37% |
| Anna Jungclaus | 9/10 | 3330 days | 40% |
| Signe Broedbaek | 7/10 | 3332 days | 37% |
| Petra Fragner | 10/10 | 3338 days | 40% |
| Koehler Ute | 10/10 | 3351 days | 39% |
| Niclas Ullno | 8/10 | 3353 days | 38% |
| Tamara | 7/10 | 3354 days | 36% |
| Chloe Guerillot | 9/10 | 3364 days | 38% |
| Luisa and Hannes | 9/10 | 3377 days | 38% |
| elena salimzhanova | 10/10 | 3382 days | 38% |
| Jakub Trojanek | 8/10 | 3392 days | 36% |
| Malina | 10/10 | 3398 days | 37% |
| Emma Keegan | 7/10 | 3657 days | 22% |
| Emilie Normand | 7/10 | 3727 days | 19% |
| Christopher Buch Madsen | 8/10 | 4048 days | 6% |
| Phil Bromby | 9/10 | 4050 days | 6% |
| Tobias Thull | 7/10 | 4056 days | 5% |
| Rita Hochstiasser | 8/10 | 4078 days | 4% |
| Nelle Dutilleur | 10/10 | 4099 days | 4% |
| Mathias Butterlin | 8/10 | 4099 days | 3% |
| Daryl | 8/10 | 4107 days | 3% |
| Bert Pubeg | 9/10 | 4173 days | 0% |
| Alex | 8/10 | 4477 days | 14% |
| Lucie | 9/10 | 4513 days | 14% |
| Henzen | 9/10 | 4517 days | 14% |
| Roy Barton | 9/10 | 4780 days | 14% |
| Brian Livesey | 9/10 | 4788 days | 14% |
| Merlyn | 8/10 | 4796 days | 14% |
| Beyeler | 10/10 | 4800 days | 15% |
| Ralf Glaser | 7/10 | 4800 days | 13% |
| Suzanne van Kol | 8/10 | 4805 days | 14% |
| kiwifrenchy | 10/10 | 4812 days | 15% |
| _mel_ | 9/10 | 4843 days | 14% |
| C | 10/10 | 4843 days | 15% |
| Sarah and Soren | 10/10 | 4880 days | 15% |
| Erik Folkersen | 10/10 | 4888 days | 15% |
| Rudlinger | 10/10 | 4891 days | 15% |
| GenH | 10/10 | 5118 days | 15% |
| R Tearle | 10/10 | 5127 days | 15% |
| Franzi & Tobi | 10/10 | 5129 days | 15% |
| Nathalie | 10/10 | 5133 days | 15% |
| Ven | 9/10 | 5135 days | 14% |
| Jerven and Kim | 10/10 | 5142 days | 15% |
| Sarah Luijckx | 1/10 | 5144 days | 0% |
| Alan Jeffery | 7/10 | 5145 days | 13% |
| Birgette Weiner | 9/10 | 5163 days | 14% |
| Tim Van Nispen | 9/10 | 5165 days | 14% |
| Bottcher | 10/10 | 5165 days | 15% |
| Sue & Graham Mullin | 10/10 | 5172 days | 15% |
| John Simpson | 9/10 | 5174 days | 14% |
| Karen Phillips | 9/10 | 5174 days | 14% |
| Michelle Booty | 8/10 | 5176 days | 14% |
| Nadia Husain | 7/10 | 5177 days | 13% |
| Dietmar Gans | 10/10 | 5483 days | 15% |
| Matt Roper | 10/10 | 5505 days | 15% |
| Chris Glasg | 10/10 | 5522 days | 15% |
| Jamie Hallifax | 9/10 | 5533 days | 14% |
| Paul Ritchie | 10/10 | 5537 days | 15% |
| Gerry Donoghue | 10/10 | 5556 days | 15% |
| Yvonne German | 9/10 | 5559 days | 14% |
| DebbieM | 5/10 | 5573 days | 9% |
| mj111 | 10/10 | 5573 days | 15% |
| Susann Koschmeider | 10/10 | 5608 days | 15% |
| X Otte | 10/10 | 5612 days | 15% |
| Hans Hoff | 10/10 | 5612 days | 15% |
| Solveig Mosinski | 10/10 | 5616 days | 15% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5627 days | 15% |
| Wim Put | 9/10 | 5630 days | 14% |
| discerner | 10/10 | 5634 days | 15% |
| Phillip Reade | 10/10 | 5634 days | 15% |
| Tim Beuzeval | 9/10 | 5634 days | 14% |
| barp | 9/10 | 5665 days | 14% |
| Becky Fairweather | 10/10 | 5818 days | 15% |
| David | 10/10 | 5848 days | 15% |
| martinat | 10/10 | 5848 days | 15% |
| Mike | 9/10 | 5858 days | 14% |
| MichaelS1 | 9/10 | 5864 days | 14% |
| StefanieGermany | 9/10 | 5866 days | 14% |
| Veronika | 9/10 | 5867 days | 14% |
| Ralph Boese | 7/10 | 5868 days | 13% |
| ToyalFrance | 9/10 | 5868 days | 14% |
| ReneeA | 9/10 | 5896 days | 14% |
| Lorna | 8/10 | 5897 days | 14% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 5899 days | 15% |
| Sandra | 10/10 | 5905 days | 15% |
| Heidi | 7/10 | 5913 days | 13% |
| Philipp | 9/10 | 5913 days | 14% |
| Simon | 9/10 | 5914 days | 14% |
| Kathryn | 8/10 | 5915 days | 14% |
| Barbara | 9/10 | 5920 days | 14% |
| Joachim | 10/10 | 5920 days | 15% |
| Ans | 7/10 | 5921 days | 13% |
| Minder | 10/10 | 5922 days | 15% |
| Evi | 7/10 | 5953 days | 13% |
| Ann Maree | 9/10 | 5956 days | 14% |
| Trine | 9/10 | 5966 days | 14% |
| Carina Korn | 10/10 | 6064 days | 15% |
| Christian | 7/10 | 6064 days | 13% |
| Nick | 10/10 | 6066 days | 15% |
| Terri Scott | 7/10 | 6084 days | 13% |
| Alan Bellerby | 10/10 | 6234 days | 15% |
| Robert | 4/10 | 6240 days | 6% |
| Elise | 10/10 | 6240 days | 15% |
| Fung | 8/10 | 6240 days | 14% |
| Peter Aston | 9/10 | 6240 days | 14% |
| Tony Wicks | 8/10 | 6245 days | 14% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6252 days | 14% |
| Carla | 9/10 | 6260 days | 14% |
| Melissa Steedman | 9/10 | 6287 days | 14% |
| Vanessa Brennan | 7/10 | 6287 days | 13% |
| Tim | 9/10 | 6288 days | 14% |
| Mary | 10/10 | 6338 days | 15% |
| Agnes | 9/10 | 6554 days | 14% |
| Cohen | 9/10 | 6574 days | 14% |
| John | 8/10 | 6578 days | 14% |
| SueLinsk | 9/10 | 6578 days | 14% |
| Frauke | 7/10 | 6620 days | 13% |
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 White Island Tours experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-3.66% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 61 days. However the White Island Tours 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 White Island Tours experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -3.61% |
| 198 | -3.63% |
| 199 | -3.65% |
| 200 | -3.66% |
| 201 | -3.68% |
| 202 | -3.70% |
| 203 | -3.72% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.68% 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
87%
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.