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 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
87.61%
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 | 2594 days | 100% |
| Wilhelm Wiechel | 10/10 | 2678 days | 95% |
| Nienke Best | 9/10 | 2888 days | 83% |
| Bernd Giermann | 8/10 | 2989 days | 76% |
| Zak Jan | 9/10 | 3028 days | 75% |
| Romana Novotna | 8/10 | 3028 days | 74% |
| Tereza Nemeckova | 10/10 | 3037 days | 75% |
| Petr Sykora | 8/10 | 3037 days | 73% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 3041 days | 73% |
| Sherrie Fox | 9/10 | 3043 days | 74% |
| Felix | 9/10 | 3043 days | 74% |
| Lina Kiellamn | 8/10 | 3044 days | 73% |
| Marek | 9/10 | 3075 days | 72% |
| Kristin Pogue | 8/10 | 3276 days | 60% |
| Madelaine Sirch | 9/10 | 3285 days | 60% |
| Jonathan Maus | 8/10 | 3289 days | 60% |
| Lærke Hagelskjær | 8/10 | 3296 days | 59% |
| Alexandra Zwiers | 8/10 | 3300 days | 59% |
| Greta | 8/10 | 3332 days | 57% |
| Anna Guttle | 8/10 | 3346 days | 56% |
| Anais Touri | 8/10 | 3352 days | 56% |
| Kathanina Jasik | 7/10 | 3358 days | 53% |
| Ahmed Mohsen Aly | 7/10 | 3424 days | 49% |
| Caro G | 9/10 | 3430 days | 52% |
| Shona MacDonald | 8/10 | 4001 days | 20% |
| Sandra Frischmann | 9/10 | 4032 days | 19% |
| Carolin Kettler | 9/10 | 4049 days | 18% |
| Mirjam Betschart | 4/10 | 4049 days | 11% |
| Manuela Michelbach | 8/10 | 4052 days | 17% |
| Colin Evins | 8/10 | 4053 days | 17% |
| Janet Evins | 8/10 | 4053 days | 17% |
| F Ballard | 10/10 | 4061 days | 17% |
| Claire Lieval | 9/10 | 4082 days | 16% |
| Alan Blackburn | 10/10 | 4125 days | 14% |
| Christin Woelk | 9/10 | 4364 days | 0% |
| Dupont | 7/10 | 4406 days | 26% |
| Mathieu Brias | 9/10 | 4446 days | 28% |
| Ingrid | 9/10 | 4472 days | 28% |
| Sue Kieseker | 9/10 | 4475 days | 28% |
| Mark and Eefie | 8/10 | 4475 days | 27% |
| M Booty | 8/10 | 4477 days | 27% |
| Anne and John | 9/10 | 4489 days | 28% |
| Jill Boruff | 10/10 | 4759 days | 28% |
| Ron White | 10/10 | 4771 days | 28% |
| Jaap & Susanne | 9/10 | 4774 days | 28% |
| Lyn Deavin | 7/10 | 4777 days | 26% |
| Erik Poirer | 10/10 | 4779 days | 28% |
| Jon Winter | 10/10 | 4780 days | 28% |
| David & Sue Lokkerbol | 10/10 | 4780 days | 28% |
| Des & Ann Bidwell | 10/10 | 4789 days | 28% |
| Sally Rawson | 8/10 | 4805 days | 27% |
| David & Audrey | 10/10 | 4871 days | 28% |
| Steve Pearce | 8/10 | 5135 days | 27% |
| Derek Puplett | 10/10 | 5135 days | 28% |
| Belony | 10/10 | 5146 days | 28% |
| Andy | 8/10 | 5146 days | 27% |
| Forestal Youri | 10/10 | 5151 days | 28% |
| Gerry Nichols | 10/10 | 5154 days | 28% |
| Mary Van | 10/10 | 5312 days | 28% |
| Conny | 9/10 | 5430 days | 28% |
| Jesper Sch | 10/10 | 5478 days | 28% |
| OMPA | 10/10 | 5484 days | 28% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5486 days | 27% |
| Peter Brown | 10/10 | 5492 days | 28% |
| Bob Kusesia | 9/10 | 5497 days | 28% |
| Johan | 8/10 | 5498 days | 27% |
| Jeanne Singuefreld | 8/10 | 5506 days | 27% |
| John Borneman | 9/10 | 5541 days | 28% |
| Dermot Bryne | 9/10 | 5609 days | 28% |
| andyge | 9/10 | 5616 days | 28% |
| AndyEngland | 8/10 | 5818 days | 27% |
| PamB | 10/10 | 5818 days | 28% |
| Andy Baker | 10/10 | 5850 days | 28% |
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
1.36% 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 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.