G'day, 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
79.26%
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 | 3206 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 3233 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 3235 days | 95% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 3245 days | 95% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 3274 days | 81% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 3294 days | 90% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 3299 days | 92% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3560 days | 59% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3566 days | 67% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3578 days | 51% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3578 days | 68% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3585 days | 51% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3587 days | 57% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3614 days | 64% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3922 days | 37% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 3975 days | 33% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 4268 days | 7% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 4268 days | 7% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 4310 days | 3% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 4313 days | 4% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 4313 days | 3% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 4320 days | 3% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 4329 days | 2% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 4330 days | 1% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 4339 days | 1% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 4345 days | 0% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4663 days | 42% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4665 days | 27% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4704 days | 42% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4722 days | 36% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4738 days | 42% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4739 days | 39% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4759 days | 22% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4814 days | 42% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 5017 days | 41% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 5021 days | 27% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 5025 days | 39% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 5031 days | 22% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 5037 days | 42% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 5037 days | 41% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 5040 days | 42% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 5040 days | 41% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 5040 days | 32% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 5040 days | 27% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 5041 days | 42% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 5042 days | 32% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 5043 days | 39% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 5068 days | 32% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 5068 days | 27% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 5070 days | 42% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 5120 days | 27% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 5376 days | 42% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 5377 days | 41% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5382 days | 36% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5385 days | 42% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5385 days | 42% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5387 days | 27% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5387 days | 27% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5388 days | 41% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5388 days | 42% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5392 days | 36% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5392 days | 39% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5394 days | 36% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5395 days | 42% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5398 days | 41% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5398 days | 22% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5399 days | 42% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5408 days | 42% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5410 days | 36% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5419 days | 16% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5422 days | 41% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5423 days | 42% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5667 days | 41% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5676 days | 42% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5677 days | 42% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5680 days | 32% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5695 days | 41% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5698 days | 42% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5746 days | 42% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5747 days | 41% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5747 days | 41% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5749 days | 42% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5755 days | 41% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5763 days | 16% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5769 days | 18% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5772 days | 42% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5781 days | 39% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5787 days | 41% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5793 days | 41% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5800 days | 36% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5804 days | 41% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5842 days | 42% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5872 days | 42% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5879 days | 22% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 5958 days | 42% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5958 days | 41% |
| regw | 10/10 | 5969 days | 42% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 5975 days | 42% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 6038 days | 42% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 6105 days | 41% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 6109 days | 42% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 6109 days | 42% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 6110 days | 42% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 6110 days | 42% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 6111 days | 41% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 6111 days | 41% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 6116 days | 42% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 6128 days | 22% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 6129 days | 42% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 6132 days | 42% |
| John | 8/10 | 6136 days | 41% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 6151 days | 42% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 6161 days | 18% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 6177 days | 41% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 6205 days | 39% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6412 days | 39% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6443 days | 39% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6465 days | 41% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6473 days | 42% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6484 days | 41% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6486 days | 39% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6493 days | 39% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6494 days | 39% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6494 days | 41% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6507 days | 42% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6509 days | 39% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6535 days | 39% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6562 days | 42% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6582 days | 41% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6811 days | 41% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6811 days | 42% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6814 days | 36% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6830 days | 42% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6852 days | 41% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6856 days | 42% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6858 days | 42% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6858 days | 42% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6867 days | 42% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6871 days | 42% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6871 days | 39% |
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
-4.07% 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 | -4.01% |
| 198 | -4.03% |
| 199 | -4.05% |
| 200 | -4.07% |
| 201 | -4.09% |
| 202 | -4.11% |
| 203 | -4.13% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.58% 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.