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
79.25%
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 | 3217 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 3244 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 3246 days | 96% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 3256 days | 95% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 3285 days | 81% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 3305 days | 90% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 3310 days | 92% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3571 days | 59% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3577 days | 67% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3589 days | 51% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3589 days | 68% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3596 days | 51% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3598 days | 57% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3625 days | 64% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3933 days | 37% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 3986 days | 32% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 4279 days | 7% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 4279 days | 7% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 4321 days | 3% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 4324 days | 3% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 4324 days | 3% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 4331 days | 2% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 4340 days | 2% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 4341 days | 1% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 4350 days | 1% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 4356 days | 0% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4674 days | 43% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4676 days | 28% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4715 days | 43% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4733 days | 37% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4749 days | 43% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4750 days | 40% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4770 days | 23% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4825 days | 43% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 5028 days | 42% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 5032 days | 28% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 5036 days | 40% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 5042 days | 23% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 5048 days | 43% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 5048 days | 42% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 5051 days | 43% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 5051 days | 42% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 5051 days | 32% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 5051 days | 28% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 5052 days | 43% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 5053 days | 32% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 5054 days | 40% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 5079 days | 32% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 5079 days | 28% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 5081 days | 43% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 5131 days | 28% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 5387 days | 43% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 5388 days | 42% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5393 days | 37% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5396 days | 43% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5396 days | 43% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5398 days | 28% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5398 days | 28% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5399 days | 42% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5399 days | 43% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5403 days | 37% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5403 days | 40% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5405 days | 37% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5406 days | 43% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5409 days | 42% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5409 days | 23% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5410 days | 43% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5419 days | 43% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5421 days | 37% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5430 days | 17% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5433 days | 42% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5434 days | 43% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5678 days | 42% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5687 days | 43% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5688 days | 43% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5691 days | 32% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5706 days | 42% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5709 days | 43% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5757 days | 43% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5758 days | 42% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5758 days | 42% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5760 days | 43% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5766 days | 42% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5774 days | 17% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5780 days | 19% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5783 days | 43% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5792 days | 40% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5798 days | 42% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5804 days | 42% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5811 days | 37% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5815 days | 42% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5853 days | 43% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5883 days | 43% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5890 days | 23% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 5969 days | 43% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5969 days | 42% |
| regw | 10/10 | 5980 days | 43% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 5986 days | 43% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 6049 days | 43% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 6116 days | 42% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 6120 days | 43% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 6120 days | 43% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 6121 days | 43% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 6121 days | 43% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 6122 days | 42% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 6122 days | 42% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 6128 days | 43% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 6139 days | 23% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 6141 days | 43% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 6143 days | 43% |
| John | 8/10 | 6147 days | 42% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 6162 days | 43% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 6172 days | 19% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 6189 days | 42% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 6217 days | 40% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6424 days | 40% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6454 days | 40% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6476 days | 42% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6484 days | 43% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6495 days | 42% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6497 days | 40% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6504 days | 40% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6505 days | 40% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6505 days | 42% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6518 days | 43% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6520 days | 40% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6546 days | 40% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6573 days | 43% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6593 days | 42% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6822 days | 42% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6822 days | 43% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6825 days | 37% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6841 days | 43% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6863 days | 42% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6867 days | 43% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6869 days | 43% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6869 days | 43% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6878 days | 43% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6882 days | 43% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6882 days | 40% |
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
-4.05% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 42 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 | -3.99% |
| 198 | -4.01% |
| 199 | -4.03% |
| 200 | -4.05% |
| 201 | -4.07% |
| 202 | -4.09% |
| 203 | -4.11% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.57% 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.