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 Kawhia Camping Ground.
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.
Kawhia Camping Ground
Valid Reviews
40 Valid Reviews
The Kawhia Camping Ground 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 | 22 |
|
55% |
| 9/10 | 10 |
|
25% |
| 8/10 | 4 |
|
10% |
| 7/10 | 2 |
|
5% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
91.50% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Kawhia Camping Ground valid reviews is 91.50% 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
4 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 4 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 4 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 1 |
|
25% |
| 9/10 | 2 |
|
50% |
| 8/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
25% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
87.50% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Kawhia Camping Ground face-to-face reviews is 87.50% and is based on 4 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
89.74%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| @getlostwanders | 6/10 | 235 days | 89% |
| Fini | 10/10 | 326 days | 100% |
| Rian Caccianiga | 8/10 | 387 days | 95% |
| Mabel | 10/10 | 387 days | 97% |
| Marie Perret | 10/10 | 418 days | 96% |
| Oswaldo | 9/10 | 540 days | 88% |
| Ella | 8/10 | 660 days | 78% |
| Julia | 10/10 | 660 days | 80% |
| Sarah Woolley | 10/10 | 660 days | 80% |
| B&Wild | 10/10 | 722 days | 75% |
| Sandra Turner | 4/10 | 1056 days | 26% |
| Paul | 9/10 | 1421 days | 14% |
| Tony | 8/10 | 1482 days | 12% |
| Stefan Hohmann | 10/10 | 1727 days | 5% |
| Mark | 9/10 | 1787 days | 5% |
| Ash | 9/10 | 1879 days | 4% |
| Leya | 10/10 | 2032 days | 4% |
| Eva Pehrson Sweden | 10/10 | 2121 days | 4% |
| Michelle Smith | 7/10 | 2427 days | 3% |
| David & Julie Frost | 10/10 | 2456 days | 3% |
| Lindsey Horton | 10/10 | 2499 days | 3% |
| Bill | 10/10 | 2578 days | 3% |
| Saskia Frank | 10/10 | 2701 days | 3% |
| Susan Boyton | 9/10 | 2745 days | 3% |
| Jonas Willmer | 9/10 | 2839 days | 2% |
| Ursula Schoenenberger | 10/10 | 2894 days | 2% |
| T Chugg | 9/10 | 2916 days | 1% |
| Paul Smith | 8/10 | 3197 days | 2% |
| Janneke Hekhuis | 9/10 | 3228 days | 2% |
| Anja Timm | 10/10 | 3273 days | 2% |
| Jacqui | 9/10 | 3347 days | 1% |
| Melvin Spear | 10/10 | 3548 days | 1% |
| Ingo Hartmeyer | 10/10 | 3613 days | 1% |
| Lee | 10/10 | 3674 days | 1% |
| Michael Simonsen | 10/10 | 3947 days | 0% |
| Gates Whanau | 10/10 | 4009 days | 0% |
| Nigel & Annie Dale | 10/10 | 4039 days | 0% |
| Jorg Steffens | 10/10 | 4661 days | 0% |
| warrenp | 7/10 | 5455 days | 0% |
| PeterG | 9/10 | 5747 days | 0% |
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 Kawhia Camping Ground experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-4.05% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 43 days. However the Kawhia Camping Ground 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 Kawhia Camping Ground experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -3.99% |
| 198 | -4.01% |
| 199 | -4.03% |
| 200 | -4.05% |
| 201 | -4.07% |
| 202 | -4.09% |
| 203 | -4.11% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.69% 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
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.