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
89 Valid Reviews
The Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping experience has a total of 93 reviews. There are 89 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 89 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 52 |
|
58% |
| 9/10 | 21 |
|
24% |
| 8/10 | 13 |
|
15% |
| 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% |
93.48% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping valid reviews is 93.48% and is based on 89 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 89 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
95.87%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pat | 10/10 | 244 days | 100% |
| Sabine | 10/10 | 304 days | 98% |
| Rachel | 6/10 | 304 days | 84% |
| Tine Warner | 10/10 | 335 days | 97% |
| Ashley + Mike | 10/10 | 335 days | 97% |
| Fabian Ullrich | 10/10 | 365 days | 96% |
| Rian Caccianiga | 10/10 | 365 days | 96% |
| K Robertson | 10/10 | 396 days | 94% |
| Marie Perret | 10/10 | 396 days | 94% |
| Katie | 10/10 | 579 days | 84% |
| James Kidston | 10/10 | 610 days | 81% |
| Szilveszter | 10/10 | 610 days | 81% |
| Claire Jones | 10/10 | 610 days | 81% |
| Charlie | 10/10 | 610 days | 81% |
| Manuel Mayer | 10/10 | 638 days | 79% |
| Wayne | 10/10 | 638 days | 79% |
| Arie | 9/10 | 638 days | 79% |
| Kirsty | 8/10 | 669 days | 75% |
| Jesper | 10/10 | 669 days | 77% |
| Laura Jarry | 10/10 | 761 days | 69% |
| cearon | 9/10 | 914 days | 53% |
| MB | 7/10 | 1218 days | 24% |
| Patrícia | 9/10 | 1309 days | 20% |
| Ashleigh | 10/10 | 1340 days | 18% |
| Thomas | 10/10 | 1399 days | 15% |
| Finlay | 10/10 | 1491 days | 11% |
| Stefan Hohmann | 8/10 | 1705 days | 5% |
| Liz Wade | 8/10 | 1734 days | 5% |
| Kim | 8/10 | 1734 days | 5% |
| James Murphy | 10/10 | 1765 days | 5% |
| Dil | 10/10 | 1765 days | 5% |
| harre medemblik | 8/10 | 1826 days | 4% |
| Dennis Rijbroek | 10/10 | 1887 days | 4% |
| Mik Jennings | 9/10 | 1887 days | 4% |
| Anselm | 9/10 | 1918 days | 4% |
| Adrian and Tanya | 10/10 | 1949 days | 4% |
| Kate | 9/10 | 2010 days | 4% |
| Tash & Laura | 9/10 | 2099 days | 4% |
| Fabienne&Dustin | 10/10 | 2099 days | 4% |
| Alis | 10/10 | 2099 days | 4% |
| Emma | 10/10 | 2099 days | 4% |
| Nik | 9/10 | 2099 days | 4% |
| seph | 9/10 | 2130 days | 4% |
| Jan Z. | 10/10 | 2130 days | 4% |
| Gerrit | 10/10 | 2130 days | 4% |
| M Elsten | 10/10 | 2130 days | 4% |
| Jason | 10/10 | 2161 days | 4% |
| Agathe | 10/10 | 2191 days | 4% |
| Ali | 9/10 | 2222 days | 3% |
| Xiaoming Guo | 10/10 | 2222 days | 4% |
| Grizzly Girl | 10/10 | 2222 days | 4% |
| Gio | 10/10 | 2283 days | 3% |
| Stefano Clerici | 10/10 | 2314 days | 3% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 2344 days | 3% |
| L + J | 10/10 | 2375 days | 3% |
| Florian | 10/10 | 2405 days | 3% |
| Boguslaw MAKIELLO | 10/10 | 2419 days | 2% |
| M A Pelton | 9/10 | 2461 days | 3% |
| UK 50-something couple | 8/10 | 2464 days | 3% |
| Alyson Reid | 9/10 | 2478 days | 3% |
| Ewan Evans | 9/10 | 2528 days | 3% |
| Lucy Watson | 10/10 | 2555 days | 3% |
| Mairead Bushe | 10/10 | 2560 days | 3% |
| Artemis | 9/10 | 2773 days | 2% |
| Naira Prudencio | 10/10 | 2799 days | 2% |
| Mailhos Cécile | 10/10 | 2804 days | 2% |
| Caryn Grosvenor | 10/10 | 2823 days | 2% |
| Catherine Kay | 8/10 | 2844 days | 2% |
| Svetlana L | 10/10 | 2854 days | 2% |
| Rebecca Lindsey | 9/10 | 2860 days | 2% |
| Neil Warnock | 10/10 | 2891 days | 2% |
| Shelly Stanchuk | 9/10 | 2921 days | 2% |
| Becky and James | 10/10 | 2954 days | 2% |
| Mikael Torres | 9/10 | 3014 days | 2% |
| Pamela Hoffman | 8/10 | 3107 days | 2% |
| Daniel Fuell | 10/10 | 3114 days | 2% |
| John-Jozef Proczka | 9/10 | 3195 days | 2% |
| Loic Journet | 8/10 | 3202 days | 1% |
| Janneke Hekhuis | 8/10 | 3206 days | 1% |
| Max Brunner | 9/10 | 3249 days | 1% |
| Ruth P | 8/10 | 3257 days | 1% |
| Nurul Nadia Naziron | 9/10 | 3322 days | 1% |
| Lotte Spors | 10/10 | 3410 days | 1% |
| Chiara Magelli | 10/10 | 3423 days | 1% |
| Philip Mattes | 9/10 | 3495 days | 1% |
| Claude Nobs | 6/10 | 3591 days | 1% |
| Simon Mehlmann | 10/10 | 3874 days | 0% |
| Camille Gagnant | 8/10 | 3946 days | 0% |
| Amanda Neall | 8/10 | 4985 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
-3.85% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 50 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 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -3.80% |
| 198 | -3.82% |
| 199 | -3.83% |
| 200 | -3.85% |
| 201 | -3.87% |
| 202 | -3.89% |
| 203 | -3.91% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.75% 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
93%
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.