Hi, 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
93.38%
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 | 563 days | 100% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 2297 days | 5% |
| Felix Koehler | 10/10 | 2802 days | 3% |
| Lucie Revay | 7/10 | 2824 days | 3% |
| Simon Schatz | 10/10 | 3094 days | 3% |
| Nadja Guiliani | 7/10 | 3099 days | 3% |
| Jamie Serieux | 8/10 | 3102 days | 3% |
| Philipp | 7/10 | 3108 days | 3% |
| George Bellwood | 9/10 | 3110 days | 3% |
| Sarah Dorsett | 8/10 | 3110 days | 3% |
| Lewis Cole | 8/10 | 3112 days | 3% |
| Robert Klub | 10/10 | 3131 days | 3% |
| Johannes Koch | 10/10 | 3133 days | 3% |
| Clara Loizeil | 7/10 | 3139 days | 2% |
| Patrick Veber | 8/10 | 3139 days | 3% |
| Fabian | 4/10 | 3143 days | 2% |
| Maartje | 9/10 | 3144 days | 3% |
| Anders Hauke | 9/10 | 3145 days | 3% |
| Alex Reeve | 10/10 | 3152 days | 3% |
| Eric Hertort | 10/10 | 3156 days | 3% |
| Christian Meyer | 10/10 | 3156 days | 3% |
| Melissa Fuster | 8/10 | 3160 days | 3% |
| Mikkel Palleson | 10/10 | 3160 days | 3% |
| Marek Dvonsky | 8/10 | 3161 days | 3% |
| Sam | 8/10 | 3167 days | 3% |
| Gregor | 10/10 | 3172 days | 3% |
| Shany Maydan | 10/10 | 3198 days | 3% |
| Sebastian and Susanna | 9/10 | 3205 days | 2% |
| Jade Cownley | 9/10 | 3498 days | 2% |
| Pierre Planchez | 9/10 | 3517 days | 2% |
| Erik Hafuer | 9/10 | 3553 days | 2% |
| Polly Rider | 9/10 | 3579 days | 2% |
| Lea Darotchetche | 8/10 | 3740 days | 1% |
| Julia Schabenberger | 9/10 | 3818 days | 1% |
| Lola | 10/10 | 3818 days | 1% |
| Alisa | 9/10 | 3818 days | 1% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 3818 days | 1% |
| Cecilia Anderson | 9/10 | 3821 days | 1% |
| Mattias | 8/10 | 3821 days | 1% |
| Guillaume Yedoux | 8/10 | 3821 days | 1% |
| Zuzana Holubova | 8/10 | 3821 days | 1% |
| Jenny Finch | 9/10 | 3846 days | 1% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 10/10 | 3847 days | 1% |
| Florent Bouillon | 8/10 | 3847 days | 1% |
| Stephen Revah | 9/10 | 3847 days | 1% |
| Hadler | 7/10 | 3851 days | 1% |
| Callum | 9/10 | 3862 days | 1% |
| Max Meternich | 10/10 | 3864 days | 1% |
| Philip Donachie | 9/10 | 3866 days | 1% |
| Andreas Jung | 10/10 | 3874 days | 1% |
| Jesseca Klausch | 10/10 | 3876 days | 1% |
| Vincent Schaeflier | 9/10 | 3876 days | 1% |
| Victor Herranz | 10/10 | 3881 days | 1% |
| Nimh Oudhof | 10/10 | 3882 days | 1% |
| Luca Willensrock | 9/10 | 3894 days | 1% |
| Arnaud Memay | 7/10 | 3902 days | 1% |
| Julia Ahrend | 10/10 | 3912 days | 1% |
| Molly Ladd | 8/10 | 4211 days | 0% |
| Missy and Chaz | 10/10 | 4225 days | 0% |
| Pink | 8/10 | 4248 days | 0% |
| Johannes Mullner | 10/10 | 4570 days | 1% |
| Jessica Marling | 10/10 | 4570 days | 1% |
| Camille and Lucie | 9/10 | 4571 days | 1% |
| Jaroslav Gajdos | 10/10 | 4583 days | 1% |
| Carl & Desiree Potter | 9/10 | 4592 days | 1% |
| Yves & Sylvia | 7/10 | 4594 days | 1% |
| Andy Bridgman | 8/10 | 4594 days | 1% |
| Maximilian Heller | 9/10 | 4601 days | 1% |
| Luis Valenzuela | 7/10 | 4602 days | 1% |
| FamilyGuy | 9/10 | 4640 days | 1% |
| Clement_Weather | 7/10 | 4640 days | 1% |
| N smith | 9/10 | 4640 days | 1% |
| Annie | 10/10 | 4671 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 4909 days | 1% |
| Gema | 9/10 | 4929 days | 1% |
| Aimee Pollett | 7/10 | 4936 days | 1% |
| Vanessa Hanzen | 10/10 | 4938 days | 1% |
| Rissa W | 9/10 | 4946 days | 1% |
| Natthien Le Gall | 8/10 | 4947 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Stones | 10/10 | 4948 days | 1% |
| Matthijs Muijsers | 9/10 | 4967 days | 1% |
| hooperuk | 10/10 | 5280 days | 1% |
| John N | 10/10 | 5305 days | 1% |
| Blair Malcolm | 10/10 | 5320 days | 1% |
| Hailey & Fin | 10/10 | 5351 days | 1% |
| varenaee | 9/10 | 5386 days | 1% |
| Pieter Neeleman | 10/10 | 5413 days | 1% |
| WiebkeS | 10/10 | 5661 days | 1% |
| Lars Haf | 10/10 | 5663 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
0.60% 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.