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 Wellington 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.
Wellington Botanic Gardens
Valid Reviews
70 Valid Reviews
The Wellington Botanic Gardens experience has a total of 70 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 70 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 16 |
|
23% |
| 9/10 | 23 |
|
33% |
| 8/10 | 20 |
|
29% |
| 7/10 | 10 |
|
14% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
86.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wellington Botanic Gardens valid reviews is 86.00% and is based on 70 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
61 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 70 valid reviews, the experience has 61 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 61 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 13 |
|
21% |
| 9/10 | 21 |
|
34% |
| 8/10 | 18 |
|
30% |
| 7/10 | 8 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
85.90% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wellington Botanic Gardens face-to-face reviews is 85.90% and is based on 61 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
87.08%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Fricker | 10/10 | 2257 days | 100% |
| Helna Saumanova | 10/10 | 2885 days | 70% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 2933 days | 67% |
| Sabrina and Hannes | 9/10 | 2952 days | 67% |
| Selma Franke | 9/10 | 2956 days | 66% |
| Su Jung Han | 10/10 | 3176 days | 57% |
| Fanny | 9/10 | 3177 days | 56% |
| Hector Sharp | 7/10 | 3177 days | 53% |
| Andre | 10/10 | 3193 days | 56% |
| Sybille | 10/10 | 3193 days | 56% |
| Marine | 8/10 | 3194 days | 55% |
| Paul Gaylon | 10/10 | 3197 days | 56% |
| Eberhard | 8/10 | 3198 days | 55% |
| Adam Pulkrabek | 8/10 | 3205 days | 54% |
| Olga Barathova | 9/10 | 3205 days | 55% |
| Melissa Fuster | 7/10 | 3242 days | 50% |
| renee verwey | 9/10 | 3249 days | 53% |
| Lea | 8/10 | 3289 days | 50% |
| Bob Fontaine | 7/10 | 3374 days | 44% |
| Melvin Spear | 9/10 | 3580 days | 37% |
| Manuela Opprecht | 10/10 | 3606 days | 36% |
| Sam Bruylant | 9/10 | 3917 days | 21% |
| Vera Kreipe | 8/10 | 3937 days | 20% |
| Jennifer Garner | 10/10 | 3945 days | 20% |
| Dana | 10/10 | 3950 days | 20% |
| Frederic Gazzarin | 9/10 | 3956 days | 20% |
| Patricia Gazzarin | 10/10 | 3956 days | 20% |
| Ruth Watkin | 9/10 | 3956 days | 20% |
| GN100 | 8/10 | 3958 days | 19% |
| Julia Bonisch | 7/10 | 3975 days | 18% |
| Verena | 9/10 | 4288 days | 4% |
| Hans | 9/10 | 4377 days | 0% |
| Anne and John | 9/10 | 4386 days | 24% |
| Jen Sweeting | 8/10 | 4649 days | 23% |
| Duncan Mallison | 7/10 | 4668 days | 22% |
| Richard Sutherland | 5/10 | 4671 days | 18% |
| Graham Platt | 8/10 | 4671 days | 23% |
| R E Webb | 9/10 | 4674 days | 24% |
| Diana Allan | 9/10 | 4678 days | 24% |
| Lepied | 8/10 | 4678 days | 23% |
| Graham Swinyard | 7/10 | 4685 days | 22% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 4722 days | 23% |
| scampr | 8/10 | 4722 days | 23% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 4753 days | 22% |
| Steve Eley | 9/10 | 4762 days | 24% |
| Willem & Lilian | 8/10 | 4762 days | 23% |
| Curry | 10/10 | 4765 days | 24% |
| Herman Plasman | 8/10 | 4768 days | 23% |
| R & M Willows | 10/10 | 4770 days | 24% |
| Elke & Charlotte | 7/10 | 4773 days | 22% |
| Malcolm Jones | 8/10 | 5021 days | 23% |
| Kimberly St Louis | 10/10 | 5042 days | 24% |
| Claire Hoyland | 8/10 | 5043 days | 23% |
| Cara Dungay | 7/10 | 5044 days | 22% |
| John Allen | 9/10 | 5051 days | 24% |
| Tanner | 10/10 | 5051 days | 24% |
| John Simpson | 8/10 | 5053 days | 23% |
| Nicole | 10/10 | 5148 days | 24% |
| Haupt | 9/10 | 5383 days | 24% |
| Herrmann | 9/10 | 5396 days | 24% |
| Susan & Richard | 10/10 | 5396 days | 24% |
| Henrik Plichta | 8/10 | 5402 days | 23% |
| Jess Laver | 9/10 | 5406 days | 24% |
| Robb Howland | 9/10 | 5417 days | 24% |
| Bram-Jan M | 8/10 | 5420 days | 23% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 5420 days | 24% |
| Nigel Armstrong | 9/10 | 5432 days | 24% |
| Ulyate | 7/10 | 5494 days | 22% |
| Kaye | 8/10 | 5727 days | 23% |
| Christian Troendle | 9/10 | 5733 days | 24% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Wellington Botanic Gardens does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
1.44% 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.