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 Spa Park.
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.
Spa Park
Valid Reviews
89 Valid Reviews
The Spa Park experience has a total of 90 reviews. There are 89 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 1 invalid review 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 89 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 36 |
|
40% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
29% |
| 8/10 | 16 |
|
18% |
| 7/10 | 10 |
|
11% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
89.44% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Spa Park valid reviews is 89.44% and is based on 89 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
81 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 89 valid reviews, the experience has 81 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 81 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 34 |
|
42% |
| 9/10 | 23 |
|
28% |
| 8/10 | 15 |
|
19% |
| 7/10 | 8 |
|
10% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
89.75% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Spa Park face-to-face reviews is 89.75% and is based on 81 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
93.40%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Léo | 10/10 | 612 days | 100% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 2346 days | 5% |
| Felix Koehler | 10/10 | 2851 days | 4% |
| Lucie Revay | 7/10 | 2873 days | 3% |
| Simon Schatz | 10/10 | 3143 days | 3% |
| Nadja Guiliani | 7/10 | 3148 days | 3% |
| Jamie Serieux | 8/10 | 3151 days | 3% |
| Philipp | 7/10 | 3157 days | 3% |
| George Bellwood | 9/10 | 3159 days | 3% |
| Sarah Dorsett | 8/10 | 3159 days | 3% |
| Lewis Cole | 8/10 | 3161 days | 3% |
| Robert Klub | 10/10 | 3180 days | 3% |
| Johannes Koch | 10/10 | 3182 days | 3% |
| Clara Loizeil | 7/10 | 3188 days | 3% |
| Patrick Veber | 8/10 | 3188 days | 3% |
| Fabian | 4/10 | 3192 days | 2% |
| Maartje | 9/10 | 3193 days | 3% |
| Anders Hauke | 9/10 | 3194 days | 3% |
| Alex Reeve | 10/10 | 3201 days | 3% |
| Eric Hertort | 10/10 | 3205 days | 3% |
| Christian Meyer | 10/10 | 3205 days | 3% |
| Melissa Fuster | 8/10 | 3209 days | 3% |
| Mikkel Palleson | 10/10 | 3209 days | 3% |
| Marek Dvonsky | 8/10 | 3210 days | 3% |
| Sam | 8/10 | 3216 days | 3% |
| Gregor | 10/10 | 3221 days | 3% |
| Shany Maydan | 10/10 | 3247 days | 3% |
| Sebastian and Susanna | 9/10 | 3254 days | 3% |
| Jade Cownley | 9/10 | 3547 days | 2% |
| Pierre Planchez | 9/10 | 3566 days | 2% |
| Erik Hafuer | 9/10 | 3602 days | 2% |
| Polly Rider | 9/10 | 3628 days | 2% |
| Lea Darotchetche | 8/10 | 3789 days | 1% |
| Julia Schabenberger | 9/10 | 3867 days | 1% |
| Lola | 10/10 | 3867 days | 1% |
| Alisa | 9/10 | 3867 days | 1% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 3867 days | 1% |
| Cecilia Anderson | 9/10 | 3870 days | 1% |
| Mattias | 8/10 | 3870 days | 1% |
| Guillaume Yedoux | 8/10 | 3870 days | 1% |
| Zuzana Holubova | 8/10 | 3870 days | 1% |
| Jenny Finch | 9/10 | 3895 days | 1% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 10/10 | 3896 days | 1% |
| Florent Bouillon | 8/10 | 3896 days | 1% |
| Stephen Revah | 9/10 | 3896 days | 1% |
| Hadler | 7/10 | 3900 days | 1% |
| Callum | 9/10 | 3911 days | 1% |
| Max Meternich | 10/10 | 3913 days | 1% |
| Philip Donachie | 9/10 | 3915 days | 1% |
| Andreas Jung | 10/10 | 3923 days | 1% |
| Jesseca Klausch | 10/10 | 3925 days | 1% |
| Vincent Schaeflier | 9/10 | 3925 days | 1% |
| Victor Herranz | 10/10 | 3930 days | 1% |
| Nimh Oudhof | 10/10 | 3931 days | 1% |
| Luca Willensrock | 9/10 | 3943 days | 1% |
| Arnaud Memay | 7/10 | 3951 days | 1% |
| Julia Ahrend | 10/10 | 3961 days | 1% |
| Molly Ladd | 8/10 | 4260 days | 0% |
| Missy and Chaz | 10/10 | 4274 days | 0% |
| Pink | 8/10 | 4297 days | 0% |
| Johannes Mullner | 10/10 | 4619 days | 1% |
| Jessica Marling | 10/10 | 4619 days | 1% |
| Camille and Lucie | 9/10 | 4620 days | 1% |
| Jaroslav Gajdos | 10/10 | 4632 days | 1% |
| Carl & Desiree Potter | 9/10 | 4641 days | 1% |
| Yves & Sylvia | 7/10 | 4643 days | 1% |
| Andy Bridgman | 8/10 | 4643 days | 1% |
| Maximilian Heller | 9/10 | 4650 days | 1% |
| Luis Valenzuela | 7/10 | 4651 days | 1% |
| FamilyGuy | 9/10 | 4689 days | 1% |
| Clement_Weather | 7/10 | 4689 days | 1% |
| N smith | 9/10 | 4689 days | 1% |
| Annie | 10/10 | 4720 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 4958 days | 1% |
| Gema | 9/10 | 4978 days | 1% |
| Aimee Pollett | 7/10 | 4985 days | 1% |
| Vanessa Hanzen | 10/10 | 4987 days | 1% |
| Rissa W | 9/10 | 4995 days | 1% |
| Natthien Le Gall | 8/10 | 4996 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Stones | 10/10 | 4997 days | 1% |
| Matthijs Muijsers | 9/10 | 5016 days | 1% |
| hooperuk | 10/10 | 5329 days | 1% |
| John N | 10/10 | 5354 days | 1% |
| Blair Malcolm | 10/10 | 5369 days | 1% |
| Hailey & Fin | 10/10 | 5400 days | 1% |
| varenaee | 9/10 | 5435 days | 1% |
| Pieter Neeleman | 10/10 | 5462 days | 1% |
| WiebkeS | 10/10 | 5710 days | 1% |
| Lars Haf | 10/10 | 5712 days | 1% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Spa Park does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
0.59% 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
94%
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.