Kia ora, 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 Wharariki Beach Walk.
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.
Wharariki Beach Walk
Valid Reviews
118 Valid Reviews
The Wharariki Beach Walk experience has a total of 118 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 118 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 80 |
|
68% |
| 9/10 | 21 |
|
18% |
| 8/10 | 11 |
|
9% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
4% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
94.75% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wharariki Beach Walk valid reviews is 94.75% and is based on 118 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
98 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 118 valid reviews, the experience has 98 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 98 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 62 |
|
63% |
| 9/10 | 19 |
|
19% |
| 8/10 | 11 |
|
11% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
5% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
93.88% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wharariki Beach Walk face-to-face reviews is 93.88% and is based on 98 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
96.39%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tz | 10/10 | 378 days | 100% |
| Nick | 9/10 | 2994 days | 3% |
| Mike Dw | 10/10 | 3051 days | 3% |
| Nicole Kasischke | 10/10 | 3057 days | 3% |
| Heather Flanders | 8/10 | 3276 days | 2% |
| Melanie and Pascal | 8/10 | 3303 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Johanna | 9/10 | 3312 days | 2% |
| Tereza Bulova | 9/10 | 3331 days | 2% |
| Bernd Giermann | 8/10 | 3350 days | 2% |
| Magdalena | 7/10 | 3375 days | 2% |
| Kayla | 10/10 | 3394 days | 2% |
| Sean | 10/10 | 3394 days | 2% |
| Louis Nilsson | 10/10 | 3396 days | 2% |
| Lene Nilsson | 10/10 | 3396 days | 2% |
| Janina | 10/10 | 3401 days | 2% |
| Evelyn Rloeh | 7/10 | 3402 days | 2% |
| Gio Zy | 8/10 | 3405 days | 2% |
| Kirsty Smith | 10/10 | 3421 days | 2% |
| Huon | 8/10 | 3638 days | 2% |
| Ana Coulee | 9/10 | 3639 days | 2% |
| Cecile Santiaux | 10/10 | 3639 days | 2% |
| Molly Bogeberg | 9/10 | 3644 days | 2% |
| Jenna Kuittinen | 8/10 | 3645 days | 2% |
| Ben Keiser | 10/10 | 3646 days | 2% |
| Tom Teuber | 10/10 | 3648 days | 2% |
| Anika Danits | 10/10 | 3648 days | 2% |
| Valerie Bernardini | 10/10 | 3654 days | 2% |
| Dan Ramsl | 10/10 | 3659 days | 2% |
| Lauren Dinnage | 10/10 | 3665 days | 1% |
| Patrick Thumeyer | 10/10 | 3665 days | 1% |
| Max | 10/10 | 3666 days | 1% |
| John and Jan | 9/10 | 3667 days | 1% |
| Volker Stroenisch | 10/10 | 3671 days | 1% |
| Josh Symons | 10/10 | 3672 days | 1% |
| Emily Garside | 10/10 | 3673 days | 1% |
| Chandra Macraigne | 7/10 | 3673 days | 1% |
| Horitz | 10/10 | 3678 days | 1% |
| Dani | 10/10 | 3678 days | 1% |
| Lee Sandberg | 8/10 | 3683 days | 1% |
| Tina Rust | 10/10 | 3684 days | 1% |
| William Lendway | 9/10 | 3685 days | 1% |
| Sophie Kalnymsky | 10/10 | 3686 days | 1% |
| Xavier Bistodeau | 10/10 | 3690 days | 1% |
| Quinn McCusker | 10/10 | 3694 days | 1% |
| Maria and Grace | 6/10 | 3696 days | 1% |
| Maria Brauherr | 10/10 | 3697 days | 1% |
| Veronique Kaplan | 10/10 | 3698 days | 1% |
| Christine Schtenker | 10/10 | 3701 days | 1% |
| Kristyna Mokrackoua | 9/10 | 3703 days | 1% |
| Florian Mueller | 10/10 | 3705 days | 1% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3705 days | 1% |
| Iris Kerbler | 10/10 | 3709 days | 1% |
| Livia and Dave | 10/10 | 3711 days | 1% |
| Elisabeth Grabner | 7/10 | 3712 days | 1% |
| Christian Reimund | 9/10 | 3714 days | 1% |
| Stefanie Giese | 10/10 | 3714 days | 1% |
| Kim and Leon | 10/10 | 3718 days | 1% |
| Matthew Hallowell | 10/10 | 3722 days | 1% |
| Justin Kechanski | 8/10 | 3740 days | 1% |
| Steffen and Johannes | 9/10 | 3744 days | 1% |
| Ixtaso Roncal | 10/10 | 3789 days | 1% |
| Naelan Le Borgue | 10/10 | 4021 days | 1% |
| Oliver Pester | 10/10 | 4031 days | 1% |
| Kristina M | 10/10 | 4059 days | 1% |
| Bes | 10/10 | 4064 days | 1% |
| Inge van Noorf | 10/10 | 4118 days | 1% |
| FlyingKiwiGirl | 10/10 | 4212 days | 0% |
| Caroline Jonsson | 10/10 | 4364 days | 0% |
| Jonny Ronnblom | 10/10 | 4364 days | 0% |
| Martin Buchta | 9/10 | 4396 days | 1% |
| Anne Haenchen | 9/10 | 4396 days | 1% |
| Markus | 10/10 | 4407 days | 1% |
| Cornelia Witte | 10/10 | 4407 days | 1% |
| Sarah | 10/10 | 4420 days | 1% |
| Mike Majnik | 10/10 | 4420 days | 1% |
| Pioter Jurkowski | 10/10 | 4455 days | 1% |
| Patrick | 8/10 | 4455 days | 1% |
| Emma | 7/10 | 4455 days | 1% |
| Christin Woelk | 10/10 | 4725 days | 1% |
| Patrick Stoeit | 10/10 | 4735 days | 1% |
| Pete Wilson | 10/10 | 4747 days | 1% |
| Yu-Ti Chu | 9/10 | 4752 days | 1% |
| Alice Berg | 10/10 | 4754 days | 1% |
| Camille Coombes | 9/10 | 4754 days | 1% |
| Jan | 10/10 | 4761 days | 1% |
| Frederic Birke | 10/10 | 4763 days | 1% |
| Glenn Surzur | 8/10 | 4763 days | 1% |
| Caderet | 10/10 | 4763 days | 1% |
| Jan & Jile | 10/10 | 4766 days | 1% |
| Lars Schulz | 10/10 | 4776 days | 1% |
| N smith | 10/10 | 4820 days | 1% |
| Michael Kretzschmar | 10/10 | 4837 days | 1% |
| Tanja Rudolf | 10/10 | 4839 days | 1% |
| Peter Adams | 9/10 | 5120 days | 1% |
| Martin Guillaume | 10/10 | 5122 days | 1% |
| Jeroen Bartos | 9/10 | 5139 days | 1% |
| Jon Winter | 9/10 | 5141 days | 1% |
| Roeland Driessen | 10/10 | 5186 days | 1% |
| Rachel_Flowers | 10/10 | 5217 days | 1% |
| Sid | 10/10 | 5247 days | 1% |
| Alibeare | 10/10 | 5278 days | 1% |
| Susannah Eduart | 10/10 | 5472 days | 1% |
| Ann-Katrine & Sille | 10/10 | 5490 days | 1% |
| Josef & Christine Evers | 9/10 | 5501 days | 1% |
| Petersen | 10/10 | 5513 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 10/10 | 5515 days | 1% |
| Helen T | 10/10 | 5826 days | 1% |
| Bob Lenihan | 10/10 | 5843 days | 1% |
| Radek Hoferek | 9/10 | 5881 days | 1% |
| Pam K | 10/10 | 5884 days | 1% |
| Sabine Locker | 10/10 | 5901 days | 1% |
| csziegler | 10/10 | 5931 days | 1% |
| Rankers Rocks | 10/10 | 5947 days | 1% |
| Tait Suridge | 8/10 | 5958 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 9/10 | 6193 days | 1% |
| Barry Treve | 9/10 | 6198 days | 1% |
| AnjaChrist | 10/10 | 6209 days | 1% |
| qofd | 10/10 | 6892 days | 1% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Wharariki Beach Walk does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
0.31% 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
97%
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.