G'day, 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
87.09%
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 | 2273 days | 100% |
| Helna Saumanova | 10/10 | 2901 days | 69% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 2949 days | 65% |
| Sabrina and Hannes | 9/10 | 2968 days | 65% |
| Selma Franke | 9/10 | 2972 days | 65% |
| Su Jung Han | 10/10 | 3192 days | 55% |
| Fanny | 9/10 | 3193 days | 54% |
| Hector Sharp | 7/10 | 3193 days | 51% |
| Andre | 10/10 | 3209 days | 54% |
| Sybille | 10/10 | 3209 days | 54% |
| Marine | 8/10 | 3210 days | 53% |
| Paul Gaylon | 10/10 | 3213 days | 54% |
| Eberhard | 8/10 | 3214 days | 53% |
| Adam Pulkrabek | 8/10 | 3221 days | 52% |
| Olga Barathova | 9/10 | 3221 days | 53% |
| Melissa Fuster | 7/10 | 3258 days | 48% |
| renee verwey | 9/10 | 3265 days | 51% |
| Lea | 8/10 | 3305 days | 48% |
| Bob Fontaine | 7/10 | 3391 days | 42% |
| Melvin Spear | 9/10 | 3596 days | 35% |
| Manuela Opprecht | 10/10 | 3622 days | 34% |
| Sam Bruylant | 9/10 | 3933 days | 18% |
| Vera Kreipe | 8/10 | 3953 days | 17% |
| Jennifer Garner | 10/10 | 3961 days | 17% |
| Dana | 10/10 | 3966 days | 17% |
| Frederic Gazzarin | 9/10 | 3972 days | 16% |
| Patricia Gazzarin | 10/10 | 3972 days | 16% |
| Ruth Watkin | 9/10 | 3972 days | 16% |
| GN100 | 8/10 | 3974 days | 16% |
| Julia Bonisch | 7/10 | 3991 days | 14% |
| Verena | 9/10 | 4304 days | 0% |
| Hans | 9/10 | 4393 days | 21% |
| Anne and John | 9/10 | 4402 days | 21% |
| Jen Sweeting | 8/10 | 4665 days | 21% |
| Duncan Mallison | 7/10 | 4684 days | 20% |
| Richard Sutherland | 5/10 | 4687 days | 15% |
| Graham Platt | 8/10 | 4687 days | 21% |
| R E Webb | 9/10 | 4690 days | 21% |
| Diana Allan | 9/10 | 4694 days | 21% |
| Lepied | 8/10 | 4694 days | 21% |
| Graham Swinyard | 7/10 | 4701 days | 20% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 4738 days | 21% |
| scampr | 8/10 | 4738 days | 21% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 4769 days | 20% |
| Steve Eley | 9/10 | 4778 days | 21% |
| Willem & Lilian | 8/10 | 4778 days | 21% |
| Curry | 10/10 | 4781 days | 21% |
| Herman Plasman | 8/10 | 4784 days | 21% |
| R & M Willows | 10/10 | 4786 days | 21% |
| Elke & Charlotte | 7/10 | 4789 days | 20% |
| Malcolm Jones | 8/10 | 5037 days | 21% |
| Kimberly St Louis | 10/10 | 5058 days | 21% |
| Claire Hoyland | 8/10 | 5059 days | 21% |
| Cara Dungay | 7/10 | 5060 days | 20% |
| John Allen | 9/10 | 5067 days | 21% |
| Tanner | 10/10 | 5067 days | 21% |
| John Simpson | 8/10 | 5069 days | 21% |
| Nicole | 10/10 | 5164 days | 21% |
| Haupt | 9/10 | 5399 days | 21% |
| Herrmann | 9/10 | 5412 days | 21% |
| Susan & Richard | 10/10 | 5412 days | 21% |
| Henrik Plichta | 8/10 | 5418 days | 21% |
| Jess Laver | 9/10 | 5422 days | 21% |
| Robb Howland | 9/10 | 5433 days | 21% |
| Bram-Jan M | 8/10 | 5436 days | 21% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 5436 days | 21% |
| Nigel Armstrong | 9/10 | 5448 days | 21% |
| Ulyate | 7/10 | 5510 days | 20% |
| Kaye | 8/10 | 5743 days | 21% |
| Christian Troendle | 9/10 | 5749 days | 21% |
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.