Hi, 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
79.42%
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 | 2830 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 2857 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 2859 days | 96% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 2869 days | 96% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 2898 days | 82% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 2918 days | 92% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 2923 days | 94% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3184 days | 66% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3190 days | 75% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3202 days | 58% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3202 days | 76% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3209 days | 57% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3211 days | 65% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3238 days | 73% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3546 days | 53% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 3599 days | 49% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 3892 days | 31% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 3892 days | 31% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 3934 days | 26% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 3937 days | 28% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 3937 days | 24% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 3944 days | 25% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 3953 days | 27% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 3954 days | 17% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 3963 days | 26% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 3969 days | 19% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4287 days | 5% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4289 days | 3% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4328 days | 2% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4346 days | 1% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4362 days | 0% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4363 days | 0% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4383 days | 17% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4438 days | 32% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 4641 days | 32% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 4645 days | 21% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 4649 days | 30% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 4655 days | 17% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 4661 days | 32% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 4661 days | 32% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 4664 days | 32% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 4664 days | 32% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 4664 days | 24% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 4664 days | 21% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 4665 days | 32% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 4666 days | 24% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 4667 days | 30% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 4692 days | 24% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 4692 days | 21% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 4694 days | 32% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 4744 days | 21% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 5000 days | 32% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 5001 days | 32% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5006 days | 28% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5009 days | 32% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5009 days | 32% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5011 days | 21% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5011 days | 21% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5012 days | 32% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5012 days | 32% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5016 days | 28% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5016 days | 30% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5018 days | 28% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5019 days | 32% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5022 days | 32% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5022 days | 17% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5023 days | 32% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5032 days | 32% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5034 days | 28% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5043 days | 12% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5046 days | 32% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5047 days | 32% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5291 days | 32% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5300 days | 32% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5301 days | 32% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5304 days | 24% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5319 days | 32% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5322 days | 32% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5370 days | 32% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5371 days | 32% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5371 days | 32% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5373 days | 32% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5379 days | 32% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5387 days | 12% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5393 days | 14% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5396 days | 32% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5405 days | 30% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5411 days | 32% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5417 days | 32% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5424 days | 28% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5428 days | 32% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5466 days | 32% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5496 days | 32% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5503 days | 17% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 5582 days | 32% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5582 days | 32% |
| regw | 10/10 | 5593 days | 32% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 5599 days | 32% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 5662 days | 32% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 5729 days | 32% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 5733 days | 32% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 5733 days | 32% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 5734 days | 32% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 5734 days | 32% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 5735 days | 32% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 5735 days | 32% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 5741 days | 32% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 5752 days | 17% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 5754 days | 32% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 5756 days | 32% |
| John | 8/10 | 5761 days | 32% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 5775 days | 32% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 5785 days | 14% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 5802 days | 32% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 5830 days | 30% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6037 days | 30% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6067 days | 30% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6089 days | 32% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6097 days | 32% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6108 days | 32% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6110 days | 30% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6117 days | 30% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6118 days | 30% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6118 days | 32% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6131 days | 32% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6133 days | 30% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6159 days | 30% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6186 days | 32% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6206 days | 32% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6435 days | 32% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6435 days | 32% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6438 days | 28% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6454 days | 32% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6476 days | 32% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6480 days | 32% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6482 days | 32% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6482 days | 32% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6491 days | 32% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6495 days | 32% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6495 days | 30% |
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
-4.06% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 43 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 | -4.00% |
| 198 | -4.02% |
| 199 | -4.04% |
| 200 | -4.06% |
| 201 | -4.08% |
| 202 | -4.10% |
| 203 | -4.12% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.51% 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.