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 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
90 Valid Reviews
The Spa Park experience has a total of 91 reviews. There are 90 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 90 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 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
89.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Spa Park valid reviews is 89.00% and is based on 90 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 90 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
79.93%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kate Forman | 5/10 | 23 days | 100% |
| Léo | 10/10 | 785 days | 85% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 2519 days | 4% |
| Felix Koehler | 10/10 | 3024 days | 3% |
| Lucie Revay | 7/10 | 3046 days | 3% |
| Simon Schatz | 10/10 | 3316 days | 2% |
| Nadja Guiliani | 7/10 | 3321 days | 2% |
| Jamie Serieux | 8/10 | 3324 days | 2% |
| Philipp | 7/10 | 3330 days | 2% |
| George Bellwood | 9/10 | 3332 days | 2% |
| Sarah Dorsett | 8/10 | 3332 days | 2% |
| Lewis Cole | 8/10 | 3334 days | 2% |
| Robert Klub | 10/10 | 3353 days | 2% |
| Johannes Koch | 10/10 | 3355 days | 2% |
| Clara Loizeil | 7/10 | 3361 days | 2% |
| Patrick Veber | 8/10 | 3361 days | 2% |
| Fabian | 4/10 | 3365 days | 1% |
| Maartje | 9/10 | 3366 days | 2% |
| Anders Hauke | 9/10 | 3367 days | 2% |
| Alex Reeve | 10/10 | 3374 days | 2% |
| Eric Hertort | 10/10 | 3378 days | 2% |
| Christian Meyer | 10/10 | 3378 days | 2% |
| Melissa Fuster | 8/10 | 3382 days | 2% |
| Mikkel Palleson | 10/10 | 3382 days | 2% |
| Marek Dvonsky | 8/10 | 3383 days | 2% |
| Sam | 8/10 | 3389 days | 2% |
| Gregor | 10/10 | 3394 days | 2% |
| Shany Maydan | 10/10 | 3420 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Susanna | 9/10 | 3427 days | 2% |
| Jade Cownley | 9/10 | 3720 days | 1% |
| Pierre Planchez | 9/10 | 3739 days | 1% |
| Erik Hafuer | 9/10 | 3775 days | 1% |
| Polly Rider | 9/10 | 3801 days | 1% |
| Lea Darotchetche | 8/10 | 3962 days | 0% |
| Julia Schabenberger | 9/10 | 4040 days | 0% |
| Lola | 10/10 | 4040 days | 0% |
| Alisa | 9/10 | 4040 days | 0% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 4040 days | 0% |
| Cecilia Anderson | 9/10 | 4043 days | 0% |
| Mattias | 8/10 | 4043 days | 0% |
| Guillaume Yedoux | 8/10 | 4043 days | 0% |
| Zuzana Holubova | 8/10 | 4043 days | 0% |
| Jenny Finch | 9/10 | 4068 days | 0% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 10/10 | 4069 days | 0% |
| Florent Bouillon | 8/10 | 4069 days | 0% |
| Stephen Revah | 9/10 | 4069 days | 0% |
| Hadler | 7/10 | 4073 days | 0% |
| Callum | 9/10 | 4084 days | 0% |
| Max Meternich | 10/10 | 4086 days | 0% |
| Philip Donachie | 9/10 | 4088 days | 0% |
| Andreas Jung | 10/10 | 4096 days | 0% |
| Jesseca Klausch | 10/10 | 4098 days | 0% |
| Vincent Schaeflier | 9/10 | 4098 days | 0% |
| Victor Herranz | 10/10 | 4103 days | 0% |
| Nimh Oudhof | 10/10 | 4104 days | 0% |
| Luca Willensrock | 9/10 | 4116 days | 0% |
| Arnaud Memay | 7/10 | 4124 days | 0% |
| Julia Ahrend | 10/10 | 4134 days | 0% |
| Molly Ladd | 8/10 | 4433 days | 1% |
| Missy and Chaz | 10/10 | 4447 days | 1% |
| Pink | 8/10 | 4470 days | 1% |
| Johannes Mullner | 10/10 | 4792 days | 1% |
| Jessica Marling | 10/10 | 4792 days | 1% |
| Camille and Lucie | 9/10 | 4793 days | 1% |
| Jaroslav Gajdos | 10/10 | 4805 days | 1% |
| Carl & Desiree Potter | 9/10 | 4814 days | 1% |
| Yves & Sylvia | 7/10 | 4816 days | 1% |
| Andy Bridgman | 8/10 | 4816 days | 1% |
| Maximilian Heller | 9/10 | 4823 days | 1% |
| Luis Valenzuela | 7/10 | 4824 days | 1% |
| FamilyGuy | 9/10 | 4862 days | 1% |
| Clement_Weather | 7/10 | 4862 days | 1% |
| N smith | 9/10 | 4862 days | 1% |
| Annie | 10/10 | 4893 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5131 days | 1% |
| Gema | 9/10 | 5151 days | 1% |
| Aimee Pollett | 7/10 | 5158 days | 1% |
| Vanessa Hanzen | 10/10 | 5160 days | 1% |
| Rissa W | 9/10 | 5168 days | 1% |
| Natthien Le Gall | 8/10 | 5169 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Stones | 10/10 | 5170 days | 1% |
| Matthijs Muijsers | 9/10 | 5189 days | 1% |
| hooperuk | 10/10 | 5502 days | 1% |
| John N | 10/10 | 5527 days | 1% |
| Blair Malcolm | 10/10 | 5542 days | 1% |
| Hailey & Fin | 10/10 | 5573 days | 1% |
| varenaee | 9/10 | 5608 days | 1% |
| Pieter Neeleman | 10/10 | 5635 days | 1% |
| WiebkeS | 10/10 | 5883 days | 1% |
| Lars Haf | 10/10 | 5885 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
3.02% 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
83%
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.