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 Manapouri Motels and Holiday Park.
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.
47 Valid Reviews
The Manapouri Motels and Holiday Park experience has a total of 50 reviews. There are 47 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 3 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 47 valid reviews:
Rating | Count | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
10/10 | 16 |
|
34% |
9/10 | 7 |
|
15% |
8/10 | 12 |
|
26% |
7/10 | 4 |
|
9% |
6/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
5/10 | 3 |
|
6% |
4/10 | 2 |
|
4% |
3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
2/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
1/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
80.64% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Manapouri Motels and Holiday Park valid reviews is 80.64% and is based on 47 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
8 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 47 valid reviews, the experience has 8 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 8 face-to-face reviews:
Rating | Count | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
10/10 | 1 |
|
13% |
9/10 | 2 |
|
25% |
8/10 | 3 |
|
38% |
7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
5/10 | 2 |
|
25% |
4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
77.50% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Manapouri Motels and Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 77.50% and is based on 8 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
85.32%
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 |
---|---|---|---|
Elvis | 5/10 | 29 days | 82% |
Brett | 4/10 | 88 days | 70% |
Janneke | 10/10 | 363 days | 100% |
Heloise | 10/10 | 423 days | 97% |
Ole | 10/10 | 485 days | 94% |
Gina | 10/10 | 515 days | 92% |
Arne | 10/10 | 515 days | 92% |
John Podubinski | 8/10 | 699 days | 76% |
Lynsey Keaton | 7/10 | 788 days | 65% |
Julia | 10/10 | 819 days | 67% |
Frauke | 8/10 | 850 days | 62% |
Howie | 7/10 | 1855 days | 5% |
Amy | 8/10 | 1884 days | 5% |
Sandra Forstner | 8/10 | 1884 days | 5% |
GM | 8/10 | 1946 days | 5% |
Sandra | 10/10 | 1976 days | 5% |
Philly | 2/10 | 2037 days | 2% |
Emily | 10/10 | 2190 days | 4% |
Jens | 8/10 | 2311 days | 4% |
Hannah | 10/10 | 2586 days | 3% |
Kat | 6/10 | 2586 days | 3% |
Bailey Dunne | 7/10 | 2586 days | 3% |
Svetlana Shriyan | 8/10 | 2614 days | 3% |
Manon Moreno | 8/10 | 2636 days | 2% |
Linda Lua | 10/10 | 2642 days | 3% |
Graham Moger | 10/10 | 2679 days | 3% |
Jane | 10/10 | 2861 days | 3% |
Dan Stenvall | 10/10 | 2949 days | 3% |
P Poiraa | 8/10 | 2957 days | 3% |
Ina and Max | 8/10 | 3023 days | 2% |
Catherine Focke | 9/10 | 3045 days | 2% |
Carolina Mondaca | 10/10 | 3049 days | 2% |
Jasper Blokland | 10/10 | 3295 days | 2% |
A.E. Nicholson | 9/10 | 3407 days | 2% |
Jan Mentink | 8/10 | 3515 days | 1% |
Wilma Senior | 9/10 | 3740 days | 1% |
Alex Leo | 9/10 | 3748 days | 1% |
J Weston | 4/10 | 4106 days | 0% |
Adam Taniwha | 9/10 | 4137 days | 0% |
Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4381 days | 1% |
Rien | 5/10 | 4769 days | 0% |
Manfred Liuduer | 9/10 | 5147 days | 0% |
johnandgin | 5/10 | 5508 days | 0% |
BenH | 1/10 | 5536 days | 0% |
Christiane Lindenberg | 9/10 | 5545 days | 0% |
Andy Baker | 8/10 | 5862 days | 0% |
Max | 10/10 | 5884 days | 0% |
Several adjustments to the weighted average are added to improve relevancy and credibility. These adjustments apply equally to all experiences that meet the criteria.
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 Manapouri Motels and Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
-0.32% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 60 days. However the Manapouri Motels and Holiday Park 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 Manapouri Motels and Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 17 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
Days | Adjustment |
---|---|
… | … |
14 | -0.26% |
15 | -0.28% |
16 | -0.30% |
17 | -0.32% |
18 | -0.34% |
19 | -0.36% |
20 | -0.38% |
… | … |
1.82% 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.
87%
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.