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 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 | 2067 days | 100% |
| Amanda Walden | 10/10 | 2950 days | 58% |
| Monique Pos | 9/10 | 3040 days | 53% |
| Alison Egan-Jones | 9/10 | 3070 days | 52% |
| Sylvain Schiber | 9/10 | 3070 days | 52% |
| Sylvain Chanton | 10/10 | 3075 days | 52% |
| Julian Gury | 8/10 | 3083 days | 51% |
| R. Damen | 9/10 | 3101 days | 50% |
| Michelle Smit | 10/10 | 3162 days | 48% |
| Gesa Roemer | 8/10 | 3291 days | 41% |
| Anais Roux | 10/10 | 3296 days | 42% |
| Luca Staudt | 8/10 | 3315 days | 40% |
| Florian Bisault | 7/10 | 3316 days | 37% |
| Anna Jungclaus | 9/10 | 3323 days | 40% |
| Signe Broedbaek | 7/10 | 3325 days | 37% |
| Petra Fragner | 10/10 | 3331 days | 40% |
| Koehler Ute | 10/10 | 3344 days | 39% |
| Niclas Ullno | 8/10 | 3346 days | 38% |
| Tamara | 7/10 | 3347 days | 36% |
| Chloe Guerillot | 9/10 | 3357 days | 38% |
| Luisa and Hannes | 9/10 | 3370 days | 38% |
| elena salimzhanova | 10/10 | 3375 days | 38% |
| Jakub Trojanek | 8/10 | 3385 days | 36% |
| Malina | 10/10 | 3391 days | 37% |
| Emma Keegan | 7/10 | 3650 days | 22% |
| Emilie Normand | 7/10 | 3720 days | 19% |
| Christopher Buch Madsen | 8/10 | 4041 days | 6% |
| Phil Bromby | 9/10 | 4043 days | 6% |
| Tobias Thull | 7/10 | 4049 days | 5% |
| Rita Hochstiasser | 8/10 | 4071 days | 5% |
| Nelle Dutilleur | 10/10 | 4092 days | 4% |
| Mathias Butterlin | 8/10 | 4092 days | 4% |
| Daryl | 8/10 | 4100 days | 3% |
| Bert Pubeg | 9/10 | 4166 days | 0% |
| Alex | 8/10 | 4470 days | 14% |
| Lucie | 9/10 | 4506 days | 14% |
| Henzen | 9/10 | 4510 days | 14% |
| Roy Barton | 9/10 | 4773 days | 14% |
| Brian Livesey | 9/10 | 4781 days | 14% |
| Merlyn | 8/10 | 4789 days | 14% |
| Beyeler | 10/10 | 4793 days | 14% |
| Ralf Glaser | 7/10 | 4793 days | 13% |
| Suzanne van Kol | 8/10 | 4798 days | 14% |
| kiwifrenchy | 10/10 | 4805 days | 14% |
| _mel_ | 9/10 | 4836 days | 14% |
| C | 10/10 | 4836 days | 14% |
| Sarah and Soren | 10/10 | 4873 days | 14% |
| Erik Folkersen | 10/10 | 4881 days | 14% |
| Rudlinger | 10/10 | 4884 days | 14% |
| GenH | 10/10 | 5111 days | 14% |
| R Tearle | 10/10 | 5120 days | 14% |
| Franzi & Tobi | 10/10 | 5122 days | 14% |
| Nathalie | 10/10 | 5126 days | 14% |
| Ven | 9/10 | 5128 days | 14% |
| Jerven and Kim | 10/10 | 5135 days | 14% |
| Sarah Luijckx | 1/10 | 5137 days | 0% |
| Alan Jeffery | 7/10 | 5138 days | 13% |
| Birgette Weiner | 9/10 | 5156 days | 14% |
| Tim Van Nispen | 9/10 | 5158 days | 14% |
| Bottcher | 10/10 | 5158 days | 14% |
| Sue & Graham Mullin | 10/10 | 5165 days | 14% |
| John Simpson | 9/10 | 5167 days | 14% |
| Karen Phillips | 9/10 | 5167 days | 14% |
| Michelle Booty | 8/10 | 5169 days | 14% |
| Nadia Husain | 7/10 | 5170 days | 13% |
| Dietmar Gans | 10/10 | 5476 days | 14% |
| Matt Roper | 10/10 | 5498 days | 14% |
| Chris Glasg | 10/10 | 5515 days | 14% |
| Jamie Hallifax | 9/10 | 5526 days | 14% |
| Paul Ritchie | 10/10 | 5530 days | 14% |
| Gerry Donoghue | 10/10 | 5549 days | 14% |
| Yvonne German | 9/10 | 5552 days | 14% |
| DebbieM | 5/10 | 5566 days | 9% |
| mj111 | 10/10 | 5566 days | 14% |
| Susann Koschmeider | 10/10 | 5601 days | 14% |
| X Otte | 10/10 | 5605 days | 14% |
| Hans Hoff | 10/10 | 5605 days | 14% |
| Solveig Mosinski | 10/10 | 5609 days | 14% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5620 days | 14% |
| Wim Put | 9/10 | 5623 days | 14% |
| discerner | 10/10 | 5627 days | 14% |
| Phillip Reade | 10/10 | 5627 days | 14% |
| Tim Beuzeval | 9/10 | 5627 days | 14% |
| barp | 9/10 | 5658 days | 14% |
| Becky Fairweather | 10/10 | 5811 days | 14% |
| David | 10/10 | 5841 days | 14% |
| martinat | 10/10 | 5841 days | 14% |
| Mike | 9/10 | 5851 days | 14% |
| MichaelS1 | 9/10 | 5857 days | 14% |
| StefanieGermany | 9/10 | 5859 days | 14% |
| Veronika | 9/10 | 5860 days | 14% |
| Ralph Boese | 7/10 | 5861 days | 13% |
| ToyalFrance | 9/10 | 5861 days | 14% |
| ReneeA | 9/10 | 5889 days | 14% |
| Lorna | 8/10 | 5890 days | 14% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 5892 days | 14% |
| Sandra | 10/10 | 5898 days | 14% |
| Heidi | 7/10 | 5905 days | 13% |
| Philipp | 9/10 | 5906 days | 14% |
| Simon | 9/10 | 5907 days | 14% |
| Kathryn | 8/10 | 5908 days | 14% |
| Barbara | 9/10 | 5913 days | 14% |
| Joachim | 10/10 | 5913 days | 14% |
| Ans | 7/10 | 5914 days | 13% |
| Minder | 10/10 | 5915 days | 14% |
| Evi | 7/10 | 5946 days | 13% |
| Ann Maree | 9/10 | 5949 days | 14% |
| Trine | 9/10 | 5959 days | 14% |
| Carina Korn | 10/10 | 6057 days | 14% |
| Christian | 7/10 | 6057 days | 13% |
| Nick | 10/10 | 6059 days | 14% |
| Terri Scott | 7/10 | 6077 days | 13% |
| Alan Bellerby | 10/10 | 6227 days | 14% |
| Robert | 4/10 | 6233 days | 6% |
| Elise | 10/10 | 6233 days | 14% |
| Fung | 8/10 | 6233 days | 14% |
| Peter Aston | 9/10 | 6233 days | 14% |
| Tony Wicks | 8/10 | 6238 days | 14% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6245 days | 14% |
| Carla | 9/10 | 6253 days | 14% |
| Melissa Steedman | 9/10 | 6280 days | 14% |
| Vanessa Brennan | 7/10 | 6280 days | 13% |
| Tim | 9/10 | 6281 days | 14% |
| Mary | 10/10 | 6331 days | 14% |
| Agnes | 9/10 | 6547 days | 14% |
| Cohen | 9/10 | 6567 days | 14% |
| John | 8/10 | 6571 days | 14% |
| SueLinsk | 9/10 | 6571 days | 14% |
| Frauke | 7/10 | 6613 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
-3.79% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 59 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 | -3.73% |
| 198 | -3.75% |
| 199 | -3.77% |
| 200 | -3.79% |
| 201 | -3.81% |
| 202 | -3.83% |
| 203 | -3.85% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.71% 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.