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 Christchurch Botanic Gardens.
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>)
Christchurch Botanic Gardens
Valid Reviews
73 Valid Reviews
The Christchurch Botanic Gardens experience has a total of 73 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 73 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 22 |
|
30% |
| 9/10 | 21 |
|
29% |
| 8/10 | 25 |
|
34% |
| 7/10 | 4 |
|
5% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
87.81% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Christchurch Botanic Gardens valid reviews is 87.81% and is based on 73 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
66 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 73 valid reviews, the experience has 66 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 66 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 19 |
|
29% |
| 9/10 | 18 |
|
27% |
| 8/10 | 25 |
|
38% |
| 7/10 | 3 |
|
5% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
87.42% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Christchurch Botanic Gardens face-to-face reviews is 87.42% and is based on 66 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
87.71%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sophie R | 10/10 | 2634 days | 100% |
| Wilhelm Wiechel | 10/10 | 2718 days | 95% |
| Nienke Best | 9/10 | 2928 days | 80% |
| Bernd Giermann | 8/10 | 3029 days | 73% |
| Zak Jan | 9/10 | 3068 days | 71% |
| Romana Novotna | 8/10 | 3068 days | 70% |
| Tereza Nemeckova | 10/10 | 3077 days | 72% |
| Petr Sykora | 8/10 | 3077 days | 70% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 3081 days | 70% |
| Sherrie Fox | 9/10 | 3083 days | 70% |
| Felix | 9/10 | 3083 days | 70% |
| Lina Kiellamn | 8/10 | 3084 days | 69% |
| Marek | 9/10 | 3115 days | 68% |
| Kristin Pogue | 8/10 | 3316 days | 55% |
| Madelaine Sirch | 9/10 | 3325 days | 55% |
| Jonathan Maus | 8/10 | 3329 days | 54% |
| Lærke Hagelskjær | 8/10 | 3336 days | 54% |
| Alexandra Zwiers | 8/10 | 3340 days | 53% |
| Greta | 8/10 | 3372 days | 51% |
| Anna Guttle | 8/10 | 3386 days | 50% |
| Anais Touri | 8/10 | 3392 days | 50% |
| Kathanina Jasik | 7/10 | 3398 days | 47% |
| Ahmed Mohsen Aly | 7/10 | 3464 days | 43% |
| Caro G | 9/10 | 3470 days | 46% |
| Shona MacDonald | 8/10 | 4041 days | 9% |
| Sandra Frischmann | 9/10 | 4072 days | 7% |
| Carolin Kettler | 9/10 | 4089 days | 6% |
| Mirjam Betschart | 4/10 | 4089 days | 0% |
| Manuela Michelbach | 8/10 | 4092 days | 6% |
| Colin Evins | 8/10 | 4093 days | 6% |
| Janet Evins | 8/10 | 4093 days | 6% |
| F Ballard | 10/10 | 4101 days | 6% |
| Claire Lieval | 9/10 | 4122 days | 4% |
| Alan Blackburn | 10/10 | 4165 days | 2% |
| Christin Woelk | 9/10 | 4404 days | 20% |
| Dupont | 7/10 | 4446 days | 18% |
| Mathieu Brias | 9/10 | 4486 days | 20% |
| Ingrid | 9/10 | 4512 days | 20% |
| Sue Kieseker | 9/10 | 4515 days | 20% |
| Mark and Eefie | 8/10 | 4515 days | 20% |
| M Booty | 8/10 | 4517 days | 20% |
| Anne and John | 9/10 | 4529 days | 20% |
| Jill Boruff | 10/10 | 4799 days | 21% |
| Ron White | 10/10 | 4811 days | 21% |
| Jaap & Susanne | 9/10 | 4814 days | 20% |
| Lyn Deavin | 7/10 | 4817 days | 18% |
| Erik Poirer | 10/10 | 4819 days | 21% |
| Jon Winter | 10/10 | 4820 days | 21% |
| David & Sue Lokkerbol | 10/10 | 4820 days | 21% |
| Des & Ann Bidwell | 10/10 | 4829 days | 21% |
| Sally Rawson | 8/10 | 4845 days | 20% |
| David & Audrey | 10/10 | 4911 days | 21% |
| Steve Pearce | 8/10 | 5175 days | 20% |
| Derek Puplett | 10/10 | 5175 days | 21% |
| Belony | 10/10 | 5186 days | 21% |
| Andy | 8/10 | 5186 days | 20% |
| Forestal Youri | 10/10 | 5191 days | 21% |
| Gerry Nichols | 10/10 | 5194 days | 21% |
| Mary Van | 10/10 | 5352 days | 21% |
| Conny | 9/10 | 5470 days | 20% |
| Jesper Sch | 10/10 | 5518 days | 21% |
| OMPA | 10/10 | 5524 days | 21% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5526 days | 20% |
| Peter Brown | 10/10 | 5532 days | 21% |
| Bob Kusesia | 9/10 | 5537 days | 20% |
| Johan | 8/10 | 5538 days | 20% |
| Jeanne Singuefreld | 8/10 | 5546 days | 20% |
| John Borneman | 9/10 | 5581 days | 20% |
| Dermot Bryne | 9/10 | 5649 days | 20% |
| andyge | 9/10 | 5656 days | 20% |
| AndyEngland | 8/10 | 5858 days | 20% |
| PamB | 10/10 | 5858 days | 21% |
| Andy Baker | 10/10 | 5890 days | 21% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Christchurch Botanic Gardens does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
1.34% 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
89%
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.