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 Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping.
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.
Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping
Valid Reviews
91 Valid Reviews
The Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping experience has a total of 95 reviews. There are 91 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 4 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 91 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 54 |
|
59% |
| 9/10 | 21 |
|
23% |
| 8/10 | 13 |
|
14% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 6/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
93.63% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping valid reviews is 93.63% and is based on 91 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
4 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 91 valid reviews, the experience has 4 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 4 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 2 |
|
50% |
| 9/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 8/10 | 2 |
|
50% |
| 7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
90.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping face-to-face reviews is 90.00% and is based on 4 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
96.28%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bea | 10/10 | 46 days | 100% |
| Cam an | 10/10 | 46 days | 100% |
| Pat | 10/10 | 291 days | 95% |
| Sabine | 10/10 | 351 days | 93% |
| Rachel | 6/10 | 351 days | 80% |
| Tine Warner | 10/10 | 382 days | 92% |
| Ashley + Mike | 10/10 | 382 days | 92% |
| Fabian Ullrich | 10/10 | 412 days | 90% |
| Rian Caccianiga | 10/10 | 412 days | 90% |
| K Robertson | 10/10 | 443 days | 89% |
| Marie Perret | 10/10 | 443 days | 89% |
| Katie | 10/10 | 626 days | 78% |
| James Kidston | 10/10 | 657 days | 75% |
| Szilveszter | 10/10 | 657 days | 75% |
| Claire Jones | 10/10 | 657 days | 75% |
| Charlie | 10/10 | 657 days | 75% |
| Manuel Mayer | 10/10 | 685 days | 73% |
| Wayne | 10/10 | 685 days | 73% |
| Arie | 9/10 | 685 days | 72% |
| Kirsty | 8/10 | 716 days | 69% |
| Jesper | 10/10 | 716 days | 71% |
| Laura Jarry | 10/10 | 808 days | 63% |
| cearon | 9/10 | 961 days | 47% |
| MB | 7/10 | 1265 days | 21% |
| Patrícia | 9/10 | 1356 days | 17% |
| Ashleigh | 10/10 | 1387 days | 15% |
| Thomas | 10/10 | 1446 days | 13% |
| Finlay | 10/10 | 1538 days | 9% |
| Stefan Hohmann | 8/10 | 1752 days | 4% |
| Liz Wade | 8/10 | 1780 days | 4% |
| Kim | 8/10 | 1781 days | 4% |
| James Murphy | 10/10 | 1812 days | 4% |
| Dil | 10/10 | 1812 days | 4% |
| harre medemblik | 8/10 | 1873 days | 4% |
| Dennis Rijbroek | 10/10 | 1934 days | 4% |
| Mik Jennings | 9/10 | 1934 days | 4% |
| Anselm | 9/10 | 1965 days | 4% |
| Adrian and Tanya | 10/10 | 1996 days | 4% |
| Kate | 9/10 | 2057 days | 4% |
| Tash & Laura | 9/10 | 2146 days | 4% |
| Fabienne&Dustin | 10/10 | 2146 days | 4% |
| Alis | 10/10 | 2146 days | 4% |
| Emma | 10/10 | 2146 days | 4% |
| Nik | 9/10 | 2146 days | 4% |
| seph | 9/10 | 2177 days | 4% |
| Jan Z. | 10/10 | 2177 days | 4% |
| Gerrit | 10/10 | 2177 days | 4% |
| M Elsten | 10/10 | 2177 days | 4% |
| Jason | 10/10 | 2208 days | 4% |
| Agathe | 10/10 | 2238 days | 3% |
| Ali | 9/10 | 2269 days | 3% |
| Xiaoming Guo | 10/10 | 2269 days | 3% |
| Grizzly Girl | 10/10 | 2269 days | 3% |
| Gio | 10/10 | 2330 days | 3% |
| Stefano Clerici | 10/10 | 2361 days | 3% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 2391 days | 3% |
| L + J | 10/10 | 2422 days | 3% |
| Florian | 10/10 | 2452 days | 3% |
| Boguslaw MAKIELLO | 10/10 | 2466 days | 2% |
| M A Pelton | 9/10 | 2508 days | 3% |
| UK 50-something couple | 8/10 | 2511 days | 3% |
| Alyson Reid | 9/10 | 2525 days | 3% |
| Ewan Evans | 9/10 | 2575 days | 3% |
| Lucy Watson | 10/10 | 2602 days | 3% |
| Mairead Bushe | 10/10 | 2607 days | 3% |
| Artemis | 9/10 | 2820 days | 2% |
| Naira Prudencio | 10/10 | 2846 days | 2% |
| Mailhos Cécile | 10/10 | 2851 days | 2% |
| Caryn Grosvenor | 10/10 | 2870 days | 2% |
| Catherine Kay | 8/10 | 2891 days | 2% |
| Svetlana L | 10/10 | 2901 days | 2% |
| Rebecca Lindsey | 9/10 | 2906 days | 2% |
| Neil Warnock | 10/10 | 2937 days | 2% |
| Shelly Stanchuk | 9/10 | 2967 days | 2% |
| Becky and James | 10/10 | 3001 days | 2% |
| Mikael Torres | 9/10 | 3061 days | 2% |
| Pamela Hoffman | 8/10 | 3154 days | 2% |
| Daniel Fuell | 10/10 | 3161 days | 2% |
| John-Jozef Proczka | 9/10 | 3242 days | 1% |
| Loic Journet | 8/10 | 3249 days | 1% |
| Janneke Hekhuis | 8/10 | 3253 days | 1% |
| Max Brunner | 9/10 | 3296 days | 1% |
| Ruth P | 8/10 | 3304 days | 1% |
| Nurul Nadia Naziron | 9/10 | 3369 days | 1% |
| Lotte Spors | 10/10 | 3457 days | 1% |
| Chiara Magelli | 10/10 | 3470 days | 1% |
| Philip Mattes | 9/10 | 3542 days | 1% |
| Claude Nobs | 6/10 | 3638 days | 1% |
| Simon Mehlmann | 10/10 | 3921 days | 0% |
| Camille Gagnant | 8/10 | 3993 days | 0% |
| Amanda Neall | 8/10 | 5032 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 Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.34% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 42 days. However the Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping 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 Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping experience has been adjusted for 17 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 14 | -0.28% |
| 15 | -0.30% |
| 16 | -0.32% |
| 17 | -0.34% |
| 18 | -0.36% |
| 19 | -0.38% |
| 20 | -0.40% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.35% 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.