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 Mossburn Country 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.
![](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg width="300" height="300" viewBox="0 0 300 300" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><rect id="bg" width="300" height="300" fill="rgb(46,196,145)" /><path d="m 150 605 Q 206 94 -305 150 Q 206 206 150 -305 Q 94 206 605 150 Q 94 94 150 605 z" fill="rgb(70,136,0)" /><path d="m 150 515 Q 296 4 -215 150 Q 296 296 150 -215 Q 4 296 515 150 Q 4 4 150 515 z" fill="rgb(185,119,255)" /><path d="m 150 176 Q 165 135 124 150 Q 165 165 150 124 Q 135 165 176 150 Q 135 135 150 176 z" fill="rgb(209,59,110)" /></svg>)
Mossburn Country Park
Valid Reviews
128 Valid Reviews
The Mossburn Country Park experience has a total of 136 reviews. There are 128 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 8 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 128 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 79 |
|
62% |
| 9/10 | 24 |
|
19% |
| 8/10 | 15 |
|
12% |
| 7/10 | 7 |
|
5% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
92.58% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Mossburn Country Park valid reviews is 92.58% and is based on 128 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
15 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 128 valid reviews, the experience has 15 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 15 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 5 |
|
33% |
| 9/10 | 4 |
|
27% |
| 8/10 | 5 |
|
33% |
| 7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
7% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
88.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Mossburn Country Park face-to-face reviews is 88.00% and is based on 15 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
95.93%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eline | 10/10 | 23 days | 100% |
| Rhonda | 10/10 | 82 days | 100% |
| VamperCan | 10/10 | 82 days | 100% |
| Andy Williamson | 10/10 | 113 days | 99% |
| YC | 10/10 | 113 days | 99% |
| Anne | 10/10 | 113 days | 99% |
| Brett | 7/10 | 113 days | 92% |
| Charly and family | 10/10 | 144 days | 99% |
| Christiane | 10/10 | 205 days | 98% |
| Caron | 10/10 | 388 days | 91% |
| Miriam | 10/10 | 479 days | 87% |
| Sandra Staples | 9/10 | 479 days | 86% |
| Chris H | 10/10 | 510 days | 85% |
| Julia Richter | 10/10 | 510 days | 85% |
| Diana Antunez | 10/10 | 540 days | 83% |
| Silene.arvinberod@gmail.com | 10/10 | 540 days | 83% |
| Chc | 10/10 | 540 days | 83% |
| annelie slaar | 9/10 | 571 days | 81% |
| Ren15 | 10/10 | 571 days | 81% |
| Victoria | 7/10 | 571 days | 76% |
| Pauline | 10/10 | 571 days | 81% |
| Elke | 10/10 | 754 days | 67% |
| Tasmin | 9/10 | 785 days | 64% |
| Katie Edser | 10/10 | 785 days | 65% |
| Kelsey Fisher | 10/10 | 785 days | 65% |
| Dave and Nicky | 10/10 | 875 days | 56% |
| Rob J | 9/10 | 875 days | 56% |
| Sue and Ron | 10/10 | 905 days | 53% |
| Shona Beach | 10/10 | 905 days | 53% |
| Joan Hermitage | 10/10 | 936 days | 50% |
| Yuri Fey | 10/10 | 936 days | 50% |
| Russell | 1/10 | 936 days | 20% |
| Anne S | 9/10 | 1150 days | 30% |
| Heather and Jim | 10/10 | 1240 days | 24% |
| Kathryn Torkington | 10/10 | 1301 days | 20% |
| Steven | 10/10 | 1515 days | 10% |
| Luke | 10/10 | 1543 days | 9% |
| Cait Turner | 8/10 | 1574 days | 8% |
| Tori | 10/10 | 1605 days | 7% |
| Joanne | 10/10 | 1666 days | 6% |
| Lynley and Ian Breeze | 10/10 | 1666 days | 6% |
| Lauren | 8/10 | 1880 days | 4% |
| Amy | 10/10 | 1909 days | 4% |
| Moritz | 10/10 | 1909 days | 4% |
| Pierre-Yves | 10/10 | 1909 days | 4% |
| Allan and Kelly | 10/10 | 1909 days | 4% |
| Johan | 10/10 | 1909 days | 4% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 1940 days | 4% |
| Nik | 10/10 | 1940 days | 4% |
| Erica | 10/10 | 1940 days | 4% |
| Leon | 9/10 | 1940 days | 4% |
| Chris | 10/10 | 1971 days | 4% |
| Peter Nesnebse | 8/10 | 1971 days | 4% |
| Antoine | 10/10 | 2001 days | 4% |
| Lucie | 10/10 | 2001 days | 4% |
| Javier Williams | 9/10 | 2001 days | 4% |
| K&KRahimi | 9/10 | 2001 days | 4% |
| Shona Beach | 10/10 | 2032 days | 4% |
| Vicki Hoskinson | 10/10 | 2246 days | 4% |
| John | 9/10 | 2246 days | 4% |
| Kathryn Torkington | 10/10 | 2274 days | 4% |
| Brigitta | 8/10 | 2274 days | 4% |
| Marty | 10/10 | 2274 days | 4% |
| From DK | 9/10 | 2305 days | 4% |
| Francois & Caroline | 9/10 | 2305 days | 4% |
| Yh kim | 10/10 | 2305 days | 4% |
| Richard | 9/10 | 2305 days | 4% |
| Nadine | 10/10 | 2336 days | 4% |
| Sellers Family | 10/10 | 2366 days | 4% |
| Shona Beach | 10/10 | 2397 days | 4% |
| Carl | 10/10 | 2397 days | 4% |
| S Becker | 10/10 | 2580 days | 3% |
| Jos Mulder | 10/10 | 2642 days | 3% |
| Suzanne Wijsman | 9/10 | 2647 days | 3% |
| Xiao Xiao | 9/10 | 2680 days | 3% |
| Kerine Au | 10/10 | 2701 days | 3% |
| Lukas Hauser | 10/10 | 2719 days | 3% |
| Crystal Wang | 3/10 | 2733 days | 1% |
| Madelyn Fagerman | 10/10 | 2939 days | 2% |
| Vicki | 10/10 | 2949 days | 2% |
| Frank Hofmann | 10/10 | 2970 days | 2% |
| Marie Blom | 10/10 | 2974 days | 2% |
| Josh Marks | 10/10 | 2988 days | 2% |
| Matthias Wohlgemuth | 9/10 | 3018 days | 2% |
| Barbara-Rose Townsend | 9/10 | 3021 days | 2% |
| Martine Baars | 10/10 | 3039 days | 2% |
| Ajit Raut | 10/10 | 3081 days | 2% |
| Ivan Wee | 8/10 | 3095 days | 2% |
| Nancy LeRoy | 9/10 | 3096 days | 2% |
| Ivan W. | 10/10 | 3127 days | 2% |
| Susan H | 10/10 | 3129 days | 2% |
| Matteo Verzi | 7/10 | 3328 days | 2% |
| Sandy Bell | 10/10 | 3368 days | 2% |
| Louise Alexander | 10/10 | 3370 days | 2% |
| Yuan Lin | 8/10 | 3375 days | 2% |
| Rachel Macdonald | 7/10 | 3390 days | 1% |
| robert zdebski | 9/10 | 3432 days | 1% |
| Sarah Gurney | 7/10 | 3439 days | 1% |
| Graham Lighner | 10/10 | 3442 days | 1% |
| Jennifer Brown | 9/10 | 3462 days | 1% |
| Lena + Kristof | 10/10 | 3707 days | 1% |
| Thomas Blom | 8/10 | 3735 days | 1% |
| Kodie Howarth | 10/10 | 3764 days | 1% |
| Rasmus Rantil | 10/10 | 3770 days | 1% |
| Bjorn Privat | 10/10 | 3777 days | 1% |
| Kim Frey | 7/10 | 3777 days | 1% |
| Silvia Hudakova | 10/10 | 3797 days | 1% |
| Julian Kuemme | 10/10 | 4047 days | 0% |
| Andrea Sole | 10/10 | 4047 days | 0% |
| Mandy Reich | 9/10 | 4048 days | 0% |
| Monique Monique | 7/10 | 4100 days | 0% |
| Petra Niemann | 10/10 | 4131 days | 0% |
| Eric and Nienke | 8/10 | 4162 days | 0% |
| J Murphy | 8/10 | 4192 days | 0% |
| Luise Fuchs | 9/10 | 4427 days | 0% |
| Michal | 8/10 | 4441 days | 0% |
| Przemystaw Tymizyszyn | 8/10 | 4441 days | 0% |
| Guillot | 9/10 | 4444 days | 0% |
| phudgb | 10/10 | 4588 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Doehl | 8/10 | 4815 days | 0% |
| Sue DeVries | 8/10 | 5145 days | 0% |
| Marii Joekalda | 9/10 | 5151 days | 0% |
| Tina Madsen | 8/10 | 5154 days | 0% |
| Sabine Tippman | 6/10 | 5154 days | 0% |
| nelliekaye | 9/10 | 5349 days | 1% |
| hellami | 8/10 | 5653 days | 1% |
| Andrea | 10/10 | 5784 days | 0% |
| JohannaB | 10/10 | 5886 days | 0% |
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 Mossburn Country Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.20% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 72 days. However the Mossburn Country 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 Mossburn Country Park experience has been adjusted for 12 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 9 | -0.15% |
| 10 | -0.16% |
| 11 | -0.18% |
| 12 | -0.20% |
| 13 | -0.21% |
| 14 | -0.23% |
| 15 | -0.25% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.36% 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
96%
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.