Kia ora, 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 Fox Glacier Lodge.
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>)
Fox Glacier Lodge
Valid Reviews
82 Valid Reviews
The Fox Glacier Lodge experience has a total of 82 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 82 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 20 |
|
24% |
| 9/10 | 15 |
|
18% |
| 8/10 | 19 |
|
23% |
| 7/10 | 15 |
|
18% |
| 6/10 | 8 |
|
10% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 3 |
|
4% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
80.37% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Fox Glacier Lodge valid reviews is 80.37% and is based on 82 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
7 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 82 valid reviews, the experience has 7 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 7 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 1 |
|
14% |
| 9/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 8/10 | 2 |
|
29% |
| 7/10 | 3 |
|
43% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
14% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
71.43% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Fox Glacier Lodge face-to-face reviews is 71.43% and is based on 7 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
82.90%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laura | 10/10 | 58 days | 100% |
| Lynda k | 7/10 | 89 days | 93% |
| Sophie | 5/10 | 89 days | 76% |
| Sarah | 10/10 | 89 days | 100% |
| Lisa B | 9/10 | 120 days | 98% |
| Debbie | 8/10 | 364 days | 91% |
| Jamie | 8/10 | 455 days | 87% |
| MK | 3/10 | 455 days | 48% |
| Kristina | 9/10 | 486 days | 86% |
| Brie | 8/10 | 486 days | 85% |
| Nick | 6/10 | 486 days | 75% |
| Kelsie | 10/10 | 608 days | 79% |
| Charlie | 9/10 | 608 days | 78% |
| HIMANSHU CHAUDHARY | 9/10 | 639 days | 76% |
| Ryli West | 9/10 | 730 days | 69% |
| 小B | 8/10 | 730 days | 68% |
| Magali | 9/10 | 789 days | 64% |
| Gary | 7/10 | 789 days | 60% |
| Charlotte Houël | 7/10 | 820 days | 57% |
| Dirk Heinrich | 10/10 | 820 days | 62% |
| Kendra | 9/10 | 851 days | 58% |
| Yuvin | 10/10 | 942 days | 49% |
| Alec | 8/10 | 1185 days | 28% |
| Gayle | 10/10 | 1430 days | 14% |
| ZMad | 6/10 | 1581 days | 7% |
| Paula | 10/10 | 1611 days | 7% |
| Gail | 10/10 | 1642 days | 7% |
| Lausgrott from Germany | 5/10 | 2069 days | 3% |
| Taylor | 7/10 | 2191 days | 4% |
| Vin | 10/10 | 2191 days | 4% |
| Pat Burns | 8/10 | 2222 days | 4% |
| Joe | 7/10 | 2281 days | 3% |
| Maxime | 9/10 | 2281 days | 4% |
| Tac | 7/10 | 2281 days | 3% |
| Anwang | 7/10 | 2312 days | 3% |
| Clem | 10/10 | 2312 days | 4% |
| Kiri Edwards | 6/10 | 2434 days | 3% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 2465 days | 3% |
| Joseph | 7/10 | 2495 days | 3% |
| Derek Gillard | 6/10 | 2646 days | 3% |
| Nora Tobies | 6/10 | 2682 days | 3% |
| Edwin Bos | 7/10 | 2687 days | 3% |
| David | 3/10 | 2691 days | 0% |
| Tammy Schein | 8/10 | 2707 days | 3% |
| Joe Trigg | 9/10 | 2718 days | 3% |
| Oz Atiya | 10/10 | 2745 days | 3% |
| Rebekah Watene | 10/10 | 2777 days | 3% |
| Sophie Holroyd | 10/10 | 2796 days | 3% |
| Chloe Watson | 8/10 | 2823 days | 3% |
| Janet Pentelow | 8/10 | 2913 days | 2% |
| Cathy Mead | 9/10 | 2944 days | 2% |
| Jason Perks | 9/10 | 2958 days | 2% |
| Alan Brown | 7/10 | 2980 days | 2% |
| Breanna Alexander | 8/10 | 3000 days | 2% |
| David Coyle | 10/10 | 3031 days | 2% |
| Andrew Altman | 10/10 | 3076 days | 2% |
| Michelle Klein | 10/10 | 3103 days | 2% |
| Tanya Davies | 8/10 | 3103 days | 2% |
| Kim Donze | 8/10 | 3145 days | 2% |
| Peter Barker | 10/10 | 3295 days | 2% |
| Sam Smith-Palomeque | 9/10 | 3303 days | 2% |
| David Johnson | 10/10 | 3310 days | 2% |
| Mallory Lopez | 6/10 | 3320 days | 1% |
| Ives van Neck | 8/10 | 3339 days | 2% |
| Felicity Fay | 7/10 | 3345 days | 1% |
| David From Switzerland | 9/10 | 3397 days | 2% |
| Wout van Dijk | 7/10 | 3433 days | 1% |
| Michael | 8/10 | 3442 days | 1% |
| Yvonne Wu | 10/10 | 3622 days | 1% |
| Stefanie Feldman | 7/10 | 3730 days | 1% |
| Hol. M. | 3/10 | 3773 days | 0% |
| Michele | 6/10 | 4017 days | 0% |
| Niamh Duane | 7/10 | 4031 days | 0% |
| J Weston | 6/10 | 4076 days | 0% |
| catherine welsh | 8/10 | 4107 days | 0% |
| Emeline Dupre | 7/10 | 4108 days | 0% |
| Jade Fleming | 9/10 | 4199 days | 0% |
| patrick+ katerina | 8/10 | 4382 days | 1% |
| Signe Kaspersen | 8/10 | 4772 days | 0% |
| Laura Diepeveen | 8/10 | 4783 days | 0% |
| Des & Ann Bidwell | 10/10 | 4802 days | 0% |
| damaca | 9/10 | 4960 days | 1% |
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 Fox Glacier Lodge experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.51% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 60 days. However the Fox Glacier Lodge 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 Fox Glacier Lodge experience has been adjusted for 27 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 24 | -0.45% |
| 25 | -0.47% |
| 26 | -0.49% |
| 27 | -0.51% |
| 28 | -0.53% |
| 29 | -0.54% |
| 30 | -0.56% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.39% 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
85%
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.