Ranking Score Explained

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 Pinnacles Track.

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.

Cymen Crick's avatar

Cymen Crick

Rankers Owner

Pinnacles Track

Valid Reviews

33 Valid Reviews

The Pinnacles Track experience has a total of 33 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 33 valid reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 9
27%
9/10 9
27%
8/10 10
30%
7/10 3
9%
6/10 0
0%
5/10 0
0%
4/10 0
0%
3/10 1
3%
2/10 1
3%
1/10 0
0%

83.94% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Pinnacles Track valid reviews is 83.94% and is based on 33 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

25 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 33 valid reviews, the experience has 25 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.

Below is the distribution of ratings for the 25 face-to-face reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 8
32%
9/10 3
12%
8/10 9
36%
7/10 3
12%
6/10 0
0%
5/10 0
0%
4/10 0
0%
3/10 1
4%
2/10 1
4%
1/10 0
0%

82.00% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Pinnacles Track face-to-face reviews is 82.00% and is based on 25 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.

Weighted Average

85.60%

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
Mike Fricker 9/10 2223 days 100%
Mike Fricker 9/10 2223 days 100%
Teb 9/10 2315 days 96%
Mark Davies 8/10 2490 days 87%
Anis Quentin 8/10 2560 days 83%
Kimmo Kiiski 9/10 2748 days 75%
Dan Schmidt 8/10 2844 days 70%
Theo Macer 7/10 2854 days 66%
Lucie Revay 9/10 2867 days 70%
Clarissa Glaser 10/10 2882 days 70%
Erik Meier-Diukel 10/10 2882 days 70%
Jade Williams 10/10 2918 days 68%
Ben 8/10 2932 days 66%
Miroslav Bazala 9/10 3126 days 57%
Emmanuel Roux 8/10 3148 days 56%
Adele Jacques 7/10 3151 days 53%
Milan Maiwald 8/10 3153 days 56%
Daniel Weber 8/10 3153 days 56%
Isabella Sinnesbickle 10/10 3172 days 56%
Jonas Weidner 9/10 3184 days 55%
Simone De Angiou 8/10 3186 days 54%
Steph 7/10 3195 days 51%
Andreas Schiefer 3/10 3198 days 29%
Dave O'Brien 10/10 3204 days 54%
Lauren Thompson 8/10 3211 days 53%
Iwona 8/10 3247 days 51%
Sarah Boettcher 10/10 3302 days 50%
Florian Littmann 10/10 3928 days 20%
Mike and Caroline 10/10 4232 days 5%
Ralph and Leonie 9/10 4345 days 0%
Johann Maier 10/10 4641 days 23%
Roman & Esther 2/10 4991 days 9%
De Blaeij 9/10 5020 days 22%

Adjustments

No Adjustment

Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Pinnacles Track does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.

Balancing Adjustment

1.71% 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 folk 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

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.