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
86.94%
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 | 2457 days | 100% |
| Helna Saumanova | 10/10 | 3085 days | 64% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 3133 days | 60% |
| Sabrina and Hannes | 9/10 | 3152 days | 59% |
| Selma Franke | 9/10 | 3156 days | 59% |
| Su Jung Han | 10/10 | 3376 days | 47% |
| Fanny | 9/10 | 3377 days | 46% |
| Hector Sharp | 7/10 | 3377 days | 43% |
| Andre | 10/10 | 3393 days | 46% |
| Sybille | 10/10 | 3393 days | 46% |
| Marine | 8/10 | 3394 days | 45% |
| Paul Gaylon | 10/10 | 3397 days | 46% |
| Eberhard | 8/10 | 3398 days | 45% |
| Adam Pulkrabek | 8/10 | 3405 days | 44% |
| Olga Barathova | 9/10 | 3405 days | 45% |
| Melissa Fuster | 7/10 | 3442 days | 39% |
| renee verwey | 9/10 | 3449 days | 42% |
| Lea | 8/10 | 3489 days | 39% |
| Bob Fontaine | 7/10 | 3575 days | 32% |
| Melvin Spear | 9/10 | 3780 days | 23% |
| Manuela Opprecht | 10/10 | 3806 days | 22% |
| Sam Bruylant | 9/10 | 4117 days | 4% |
| Vera Kreipe | 8/10 | 4137 days | 3% |
| Jennifer Garner | 10/10 | 4145 days | 3% |
| Dana | 10/10 | 4150 days | 2% |
| Frederic Gazzarin | 9/10 | 4156 days | 2% |
| Patricia Gazzarin | 10/10 | 4156 days | 2% |
| Ruth Watkin | 9/10 | 4156 days | 2% |
| GN100 | 8/10 | 4158 days | 2% |
| Julia Bonisch | 7/10 | 4175 days | 0% |
| Verena | 9/10 | 4488 days | 18% |
| Hans | 9/10 | 4577 days | 18% |
| Anne and John | 9/10 | 4586 days | 18% |
| Jen Sweeting | 8/10 | 4849 days | 18% |
| Duncan Mallison | 7/10 | 4868 days | 16% |
| Richard Sutherland | 5/10 | 4871 days | 11% |
| Graham Platt | 8/10 | 4871 days | 18% |
| R E Webb | 9/10 | 4874 days | 18% |
| Diana Allan | 9/10 | 4878 days | 18% |
| Lepied | 8/10 | 4878 days | 18% |
| Graham Swinyard | 7/10 | 4885 days | 16% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 4922 days | 18% |
| scampr | 8/10 | 4922 days | 18% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 4953 days | 16% |
| Steve Eley | 9/10 | 4962 days | 18% |
| Willem & Lilian | 8/10 | 4962 days | 18% |
| Curry | 10/10 | 4965 days | 18% |
| Herman Plasman | 8/10 | 4968 days | 18% |
| R & M Willows | 10/10 | 4970 days | 18% |
| Elke & Charlotte | 7/10 | 4973 days | 16% |
| Malcolm Jones | 8/10 | 5221 days | 18% |
| Kimberly St Louis | 10/10 | 5242 days | 18% |
| Claire Hoyland | 8/10 | 5243 days | 18% |
| Cara Dungay | 7/10 | 5244 days | 16% |
| John Allen | 9/10 | 5251 days | 18% |
| Tanner | 10/10 | 5251 days | 18% |
| John Simpson | 8/10 | 5253 days | 18% |
| Nicole | 10/10 | 5348 days | 18% |
| Haupt | 9/10 | 5583 days | 18% |
| Herrmann | 9/10 | 5596 days | 18% |
| Susan & Richard | 10/10 | 5596 days | 18% |
| Henrik Plichta | 8/10 | 5602 days | 18% |
| Jess Laver | 9/10 | 5606 days | 18% |
| Robb Howland | 9/10 | 5617 days | 18% |
| Bram-Jan M | 8/10 | 5620 days | 18% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 5620 days | 18% |
| Nigel Armstrong | 9/10 | 5632 days | 18% |
| Ulyate | 7/10 | 5694 days | 16% |
| Kaye | 8/10 | 5927 days | 18% |
| Christian Troendle | 9/10 | 5933 days | 18% |
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
1.47% 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
88%
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.