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
96.47%
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 | 291 days | 100% |
| Nick | 9/10 | 2907 days | 3% |
| Mike Dw | 10/10 | 2964 days | 3% |
| Nicole Kasischke | 10/10 | 2970 days | 3% |
| Heather Flanders | 8/10 | 3189 days | 2% |
| Melanie and Pascal | 8/10 | 3216 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Johanna | 9/10 | 3225 days | 2% |
| Tereza Bulova | 9/10 | 3244 days | 2% |
| Bernd Giermann | 8/10 | 3263 days | 2% |
| Magdalena | 7/10 | 3288 days | 2% |
| Kayla | 10/10 | 3307 days | 2% |
| Sean | 10/10 | 3307 days | 2% |
| Louis Nilsson | 10/10 | 3309 days | 2% |
| Lene Nilsson | 10/10 | 3309 days | 2% |
| Janina | 10/10 | 3314 days | 2% |
| Evelyn Rloeh | 7/10 | 3315 days | 2% |
| Gio Zy | 8/10 | 3318 days | 2% |
| Kirsty Smith | 10/10 | 3334 days | 2% |
| Huon | 8/10 | 3551 days | 2% |
| Ana Coulee | 9/10 | 3552 days | 2% |
| Cecile Santiaux | 10/10 | 3552 days | 2% |
| Molly Bogeberg | 9/10 | 3557 days | 2% |
| Jenna Kuittinen | 8/10 | 3558 days | 2% |
| Ben Keiser | 10/10 | 3559 days | 2% |
| Tom Teuber | 10/10 | 3561 days | 2% |
| Anika Danits | 10/10 | 3561 days | 2% |
| Valerie Bernardini | 10/10 | 3567 days | 2% |
| Dan Ramsl | 10/10 | 3572 days | 2% |
| Lauren Dinnage | 10/10 | 3578 days | 2% |
| Patrick Thumeyer | 10/10 | 3578 days | 2% |
| Max | 10/10 | 3579 days | 2% |
| John and Jan | 9/10 | 3580 days | 2% |
| Volker Stroenisch | 10/10 | 3584 days | 2% |
| Josh Symons | 10/10 | 3585 days | 2% |
| Emily Garside | 10/10 | 3586 days | 2% |
| Chandra Macraigne | 7/10 | 3586 days | 1% |
| Horitz | 10/10 | 3591 days | 2% |
| Dani | 10/10 | 3591 days | 2% |
| Lee Sandberg | 8/10 | 3596 days | 2% |
| Tina Rust | 10/10 | 3597 days | 2% |
| William Lendway | 9/10 | 3598 days | 2% |
| Sophie Kalnymsky | 10/10 | 3599 days | 2% |
| Xavier Bistodeau | 10/10 | 3603 days | 2% |
| Quinn McCusker | 10/10 | 3607 days | 2% |
| Maria and Grace | 6/10 | 3609 days | 1% |
| Maria Brauherr | 10/10 | 3610 days | 2% |
| Veronique Kaplan | 10/10 | 3611 days | 2% |
| Christine Schtenker | 10/10 | 3614 days | 2% |
| Kristyna Mokrackoua | 9/10 | 3616 days | 2% |
| Florian Mueller | 10/10 | 3618 days | 2% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3618 days | 2% |
| Iris Kerbler | 10/10 | 3622 days | 2% |
| Livia and Dave | 10/10 | 3624 days | 2% |
| Elisabeth Grabner | 7/10 | 3625 days | 1% |
| Christian Reimund | 9/10 | 3627 days | 2% |
| Stefanie Giese | 10/10 | 3627 days | 2% |
| Kim and Leon | 10/10 | 3631 days | 2% |
| Matthew Hallowell | 10/10 | 3635 days | 2% |
| Justin Kechanski | 8/10 | 3653 days | 1% |
| Steffen and Johannes | 9/10 | 3657 days | 1% |
| Ixtaso Roncal | 10/10 | 3702 days | 1% |
| Naelan Le Borgue | 10/10 | 3934 days | 1% |
| Oliver Pester | 10/10 | 3943 days | 1% |
| Kristina M | 10/10 | 3971 days | 1% |
| Bes | 10/10 | 3977 days | 1% |
| Inge van Noorf | 10/10 | 4031 days | 1% |
| FlyingKiwiGirl | 10/10 | 4124 days | 1% |
| Caroline Jonsson | 10/10 | 4277 days | 0% |
| Jonny Ronnblom | 10/10 | 4277 days | 0% |
| Martin Buchta | 9/10 | 4309 days | 0% |
| Anne Haenchen | 9/10 | 4309 days | 0% |
| Markus | 10/10 | 4320 days | 0% |
| Cornelia Witte | 10/10 | 4320 days | 0% |
| Sarah | 10/10 | 4333 days | 0% |
| Mike Majnik | 10/10 | 4333 days | 0% |
| Pioter Jurkowski | 10/10 | 4368 days | 0% |
| Patrick | 8/10 | 4368 days | 0% |
| Emma | 7/10 | 4368 days | 0% |
| Christin Woelk | 10/10 | 4638 days | 1% |
| Patrick Stoeit | 10/10 | 4648 days | 1% |
| Pete Wilson | 10/10 | 4660 days | 1% |
| Yu-Ti Chu | 9/10 | 4665 days | 1% |
| Alice Berg | 10/10 | 4667 days | 1% |
| Camille Coombes | 9/10 | 4667 days | 1% |
| Jan | 10/10 | 4674 days | 1% |
| Frederic Birke | 10/10 | 4676 days | 1% |
| Glenn Surzur | 8/10 | 4676 days | 1% |
| Caderet | 10/10 | 4676 days | 1% |
| Jan & Jile | 10/10 | 4679 days | 1% |
| Lars Schulz | 10/10 | 4689 days | 1% |
| N smith | 10/10 | 4733 days | 1% |
| Michael Kretzschmar | 10/10 | 4750 days | 1% |
| Tanja Rudolf | 10/10 | 4752 days | 1% |
| Peter Adams | 9/10 | 5033 days | 1% |
| Martin Guillaume | 10/10 | 5035 days | 1% |
| Jeroen Bartos | 9/10 | 5052 days | 1% |
| Jon Winter | 9/10 | 5054 days | 1% |
| Roeland Driessen | 10/10 | 5099 days | 1% |
| Rachel_Flowers | 10/10 | 5130 days | 1% |
| Sid | 10/10 | 5160 days | 1% |
| Alibeare | 10/10 | 5191 days | 1% |
| Susannah Eduart | 10/10 | 5385 days | 1% |
| Ann-Katrine & Sille | 10/10 | 5403 days | 1% |
| Josef & Christine Evers | 9/10 | 5414 days | 1% |
| Petersen | 10/10 | 5426 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 10/10 | 5428 days | 1% |
| Helen T | 10/10 | 5739 days | 1% |
| Bob Lenihan | 10/10 | 5756 days | 1% |
| Radek Hoferek | 9/10 | 5794 days | 1% |
| Pam K | 10/10 | 5797 days | 1% |
| Sabine Locker | 10/10 | 5814 days | 1% |
| csziegler | 10/10 | 5844 days | 1% |
| Rankers Rocks | 10/10 | 5860 days | 1% |
| Tait Suridge | 8/10 | 5871 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 9/10 | 6106 days | 1% |
| Barry Treve | 9/10 | 6111 days | 1% |
| AnjaChrist | 10/10 | 6122 days | 1% |
| qofd | 10/10 | 6805 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
0.30% 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.