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 Royal Albatross Centre.
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.
Royal Albatross Centre
Valid Reviews
140 Valid Reviews
The Royal Albatross Centre experience has a total of 140 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 140 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 26 |
|
19% |
| 9/10 | 32 |
|
23% |
| 8/10 | 31 |
|
22% |
| 7/10 | 16 |
|
11% |
| 6/10 | 11 |
|
8% |
| 5/10 | 7 |
|
5% |
| 4/10 | 8 |
|
6% |
| 3/10 | 5 |
|
4% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
75.86% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Royal Albatross Centre valid reviews is 75.86% and is based on 140 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
131 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 140 valid reviews, the experience has 131 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 131 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 26 |
|
20% |
| 9/10 | 30 |
|
23% |
| 8/10 | 29 |
|
22% |
| 7/10 | 14 |
|
11% |
| 6/10 | 9 |
|
7% |
| 5/10 | 7 |
|
5% |
| 4/10 | 8 |
|
6% |
| 3/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 1/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
76.26% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Royal Albatross Centre face-to-face reviews is 76.26% and is based on 131 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
79.49%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tomas Kellner | 10/10 | 2861 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 2888 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 2890 days | 96% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 2900 days | 95% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 2929 days | 82% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 2949 days | 92% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 2954 days | 94% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3215 days | 66% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3221 days | 75% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3233 days | 57% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3233 days | 75% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3240 days | 57% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3242 days | 64% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3269 days | 72% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3577 days | 52% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 3630 days | 49% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 3923 days | 30% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 3923 days | 30% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 3965 days | 25% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 3968 days | 27% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 3968 days | 23% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 3975 days | 25% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 3984 days | 26% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 3985 days | 17% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 3994 days | 25% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 4000 days | 19% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4318 days | 4% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4320 days | 2% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4359 days | 1% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4377 days | 0% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4393 days | 34% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4394 days | 31% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4414 days | 18% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4469 days | 33% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 4672 days | 33% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 4676 days | 22% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 4680 days | 31% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 4686 days | 18% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 4692 days | 33% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 4692 days | 33% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 4695 days | 34% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 4695 days | 33% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 4695 days | 26% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 4695 days | 22% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 4696 days | 33% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 4697 days | 26% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 4698 days | 31% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 4723 days | 26% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 4723 days | 22% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 4725 days | 33% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 4775 days | 22% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 5031 days | 33% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 5032 days | 33% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5037 days | 29% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5040 days | 33% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5040 days | 33% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5042 days | 22% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5042 days | 22% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5043 days | 33% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5043 days | 34% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5047 days | 29% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5047 days | 31% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5049 days | 29% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5050 days | 33% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5053 days | 33% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5053 days | 18% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5054 days | 34% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5063 days | 33% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5065 days | 29% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5074 days | 14% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5077 days | 33% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5078 days | 33% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5321 days | 33% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5330 days | 34% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5331 days | 34% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5334 days | 26% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5349 days | 33% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5352 days | 33% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5401 days | 33% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5402 days | 33% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5402 days | 33% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5404 days | 33% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5410 days | 33% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5418 days | 14% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5424 days | 15% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5427 days | 33% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5436 days | 31% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5442 days | 33% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5448 days | 33% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5455 days | 29% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5459 days | 33% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5497 days | 34% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5527 days | 34% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5534 days | 18% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 5612 days | 33% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5612 days | 33% |
| regw | 10/10 | 5623 days | 34% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 5629 days | 33% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 5692 days | 34% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 5760 days | 33% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 5764 days | 33% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 5764 days | 34% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 5765 days | 33% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 5765 days | 33% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 5766 days | 33% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 5766 days | 33% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 5771 days | 34% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 5783 days | 18% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 5784 days | 33% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 5787 days | 33% |
| John | 8/10 | 5791 days | 33% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 5806 days | 33% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 5816 days | 15% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 5832 days | 33% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 5860 days | 31% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6067 days | 31% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6097 days | 31% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6120 days | 33% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6128 days | 34% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6139 days | 33% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6141 days | 31% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6148 days | 31% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6149 days | 31% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6149 days | 33% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6162 days | 33% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6164 days | 31% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6190 days | 31% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6217 days | 33% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6237 days | 33% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6465 days | 33% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6465 days | 33% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6468 days | 29% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6484 days | 34% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6507 days | 33% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6511 days | 33% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6513 days | 33% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6513 days | 34% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6522 days | 34% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6526 days | 34% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6526 days | 31% |
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 Royal Albatross Centre experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-4.02% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 41 days. However the Royal Albatross Centre 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 Royal Albatross Centre experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -3.96% |
| 198 | -3.98% |
| 199 | -4.00% |
| 200 | -4.02% |
| 201 | -4.04% |
| 202 | -4.06% |
| 203 | -4.08% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.47% 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
80%
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.