Hey, 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 92 reviews. There are 90 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 2 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 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
76.90%
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 | 257 days | 100% |
| Léo | 10/10 | 1019 days | 57% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 2753 days | 4% |
| Felix Koehler | 10/10 | 3258 days | 3% |
| Lucie Revay | 7/10 | 3280 days | 3% |
| Simon Schatz | 10/10 | 3550 days | 2% |
| Nadja Guiliani | 7/10 | 3555 days | 2% |
| Jamie Serieux | 8/10 | 3558 days | 2% |
| Philipp | 7/10 | 3564 days | 2% |
| George Bellwood | 9/10 | 3566 days | 2% |
| Sarah Dorsett | 8/10 | 3566 days | 2% |
| Lewis Cole | 8/10 | 3568 days | 2% |
| Robert Klub | 10/10 | 3587 days | 2% |
| Johannes Koch | 10/10 | 3589 days | 2% |
| Clara Loizeil | 7/10 | 3595 days | 2% |
| Patrick Veber | 8/10 | 3595 days | 2% |
| Fabian | 4/10 | 3599 days | 1% |
| Maartje | 9/10 | 3600 days | 2% |
| Anders Hauke | 9/10 | 3601 days | 2% |
| Alex Reeve | 10/10 | 3608 days | 2% |
| Eric Hertort | 10/10 | 3612 days | 2% |
| Christian Meyer | 10/10 | 3612 days | 2% |
| Melissa Fuster | 8/10 | 3616 days | 2% |
| Mikkel Palleson | 10/10 | 3616 days | 2% |
| Marek Dvonsky | 8/10 | 3617 days | 2% |
| Sam | 8/10 | 3623 days | 2% |
| Gregor | 10/10 | 3628 days | 2% |
| Shany Maydan | 10/10 | 3654 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Susanna | 9/10 | 3661 days | 2% |
| Jade Cownley | 9/10 | 3954 days | 1% |
| Pierre Planchez | 9/10 | 3973 days | 1% |
| Erik Hafuer | 9/10 | 4009 days | 1% |
| Polly Rider | 9/10 | 4035 days | 1% |
| Lea Darotchetche | 8/10 | 4196 days | 0% |
| Julia Schabenberger | 9/10 | 4274 days | 0% |
| Lola | 10/10 | 4274 days | 0% |
| Alisa | 9/10 | 4274 days | 0% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 4274 days | 0% |
| Cecilia Anderson | 9/10 | 4277 days | 0% |
| Mattias | 8/10 | 4277 days | 0% |
| Guillaume Yedoux | 8/10 | 4277 days | 0% |
| Zuzana Holubova | 8/10 | 4277 days | 0% |
| Jenny Finch | 9/10 | 4302 days | 0% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 10/10 | 4303 days | 0% |
| Florent Bouillon | 8/10 | 4303 days | 0% |
| Stephen Revah | 9/10 | 4303 days | 0% |
| Hadler | 7/10 | 4307 days | 0% |
| Callum | 9/10 | 4318 days | 0% |
| Max Meternich | 10/10 | 4320 days | 0% |
| Philip Donachie | 9/10 | 4322 days | 0% |
| Andreas Jung | 10/10 | 4330 days | 0% |
| Jesseca Klausch | 10/10 | 4332 days | 0% |
| Vincent Schaeflier | 9/10 | 4332 days | 0% |
| Victor Herranz | 10/10 | 4337 days | 0% |
| Nimh Oudhof | 10/10 | 4338 days | 0% |
| Luca Willensrock | 9/10 | 4350 days | 0% |
| Arnaud Memay | 7/10 | 4358 days | 0% |
| Julia Ahrend | 10/10 | 4368 days | 0% |
| Molly Ladd | 8/10 | 4667 days | 1% |
| Missy and Chaz | 10/10 | 4681 days | 1% |
| Pink | 8/10 | 4704 days | 1% |
| Johannes Mullner | 10/10 | 5026 days | 1% |
| Jessica Marling | 10/10 | 5026 days | 1% |
| Camille and Lucie | 9/10 | 5027 days | 1% |
| Jaroslav Gajdos | 10/10 | 5039 days | 1% |
| Carl & Desiree Potter | 9/10 | 5048 days | 1% |
| Yves & Sylvia | 7/10 | 5050 days | 1% |
| Andy Bridgman | 8/10 | 5050 days | 1% |
| Maximilian Heller | 9/10 | 5057 days | 1% |
| Luis Valenzuela | 7/10 | 5058 days | 1% |
| FamilyGuy | 9/10 | 5096 days | 1% |
| Clement_Weather | 7/10 | 5096 days | 1% |
| N smith | 9/10 | 5096 days | 1% |
| Annie | 10/10 | 5127 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5365 days | 1% |
| Gema | 9/10 | 5385 days | 1% |
| Aimee Pollett | 7/10 | 5392 days | 1% |
| Vanessa Hanzen | 10/10 | 5394 days | 1% |
| Rissa W | 9/10 | 5402 days | 1% |
| Natthien Le Gall | 8/10 | 5403 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Stones | 10/10 | 5404 days | 1% |
| Matthijs Muijsers | 9/10 | 5423 days | 1% |
| hooperuk | 10/10 | 5736 days | 1% |
| John N | 10/10 | 5761 days | 1% |
| Blair Malcolm | 10/10 | 5776 days | 1% |
| Hailey & Fin | 10/10 | 5807 days | 1% |
| varenaee | 9/10 | 5842 days | 1% |
| Pieter Neeleman | 10/10 | 5869 days | 1% |
| WiebkeS | 10/10 | 6117 days | 1% |
| Lars Haf | 10/10 | 6119 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
3.95% 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
81%
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.