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 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
79.54%
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 | 2764 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 2791 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 2793 days | 96% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 2803 days | 96% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 2832 days | 82% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 2852 days | 93% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 2857 days | 94% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3118 days | 67% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3124 days | 76% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3136 days | 58% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3136 days | 77% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3143 days | 58% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3145 days | 66% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3172 days | 74% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3480 days | 55% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 3533 days | 52% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 3826 days | 34% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 3826 days | 34% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 3868 days | 29% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 3871 days | 31% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 3871 days | 27% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 3878 days | 29% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 3887 days | 30% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 3888 days | 20% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 3897 days | 30% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 3903 days | 22% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4221 days | 9% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4223 days | 6% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4262 days | 7% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4280 days | 5% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4296 days | 5% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4297 days | 4% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4317 days | 2% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4372 days | 0% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 4575 days | 31% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 4579 days | 20% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 4583 days | 29% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 4589 days | 17% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 4595 days | 31% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 4595 days | 31% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 4598 days | 31% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 4598 days | 31% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 4598 days | 24% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 4598 days | 20% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 4599 days | 31% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 4600 days | 24% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 4601 days | 29% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 4626 days | 24% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 4626 days | 20% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 4628 days | 31% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 4678 days | 20% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 4934 days | 31% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 4935 days | 31% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 4940 days | 27% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 4943 days | 31% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 4943 days | 31% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 4945 days | 20% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 4945 days | 20% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 4946 days | 31% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 4946 days | 31% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 4950 days | 27% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 4950 days | 29% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 4952 days | 27% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 4953 days | 31% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 4956 days | 31% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 4956 days | 17% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 4957 days | 31% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 4966 days | 31% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 4968 days | 27% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 4977 days | 12% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 4980 days | 31% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 4981 days | 31% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5225 days | 31% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5234 days | 31% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5235 days | 31% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5238 days | 24% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5253 days | 31% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5256 days | 31% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5304 days | 31% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5305 days | 31% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5305 days | 31% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5307 days | 31% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5313 days | 31% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5321 days | 12% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5327 days | 14% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5330 days | 31% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5339 days | 29% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5345 days | 31% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5351 days | 31% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5358 days | 27% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5362 days | 31% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5400 days | 31% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5430 days | 31% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5437 days | 17% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 5516 days | 31% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5516 days | 31% |
| regw | 10/10 | 5527 days | 31% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 5533 days | 31% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 5596 days | 31% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 5663 days | 31% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 5667 days | 31% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 5667 days | 31% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 5668 days | 31% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 5668 days | 31% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 5669 days | 31% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 5669 days | 31% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 5674 days | 31% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 5686 days | 17% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 5687 days | 31% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 5690 days | 31% |
| John | 8/10 | 5694 days | 31% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 5709 days | 31% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 5719 days | 14% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 5735 days | 31% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 5764 days | 29% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 5970 days | 29% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6001 days | 29% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6023 days | 31% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6031 days | 31% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6042 days | 31% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6044 days | 29% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6051 days | 29% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6052 days | 29% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6052 days | 31% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6065 days | 31% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6067 days | 29% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6093 days | 29% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6120 days | 31% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6140 days | 31% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6369 days | 31% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6369 days | 31% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6372 days | 27% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6388 days | 31% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6410 days | 31% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6414 days | 31% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6416 days | 31% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6416 days | 31% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6425 days | 31% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6429 days | 31% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6429 days | 29% |
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
-3.05% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 74 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 | -3.01% |
| 198 | -3.02% |
| 199 | -3.04% |
| 200 | -3.05% |
| 201 | -3.07% |
| 202 | -3.08% |
| 203 | -3.10% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.10% 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
81%
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.