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 Rays Rest Camping Reserve.
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.
48 Valid Reviews
The Rays Rest Camping Reserve experience has a total of 50 reviews. There are 48 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.
Within these 48 valid reviews, the experience has 3 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 48 valid reviews:
Rating | Count | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
10/10 | 17 |
|
35% |
9/10 | 13 |
|
27% |
8/10 | 11 |
|
23% |
7/10 | 7 |
|
15% |
6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
88.33% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Rays Rest Camping Reserve valid reviews is 88.33% and is based on 48 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
91.91%
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 |
---|---|---|---|
Logan | 10/10 | 491 days | 100% |
sarah penney | 10/10 | 582 days | 94% |
ellie | 7/10 | 582 days | 87% |
iona.catley@hotmail.co.uk | 9/10 | 613 days | 90% |
Helen E | 10/10 | 613 days | 91% |
Happy Campers | 10/10 | 764 days | 77% |
Matt | 10/10 | 978 days | 53% |
Sebastian Stoof | 8/10 | 1068 days | 43% |
Alex | 8/10 | 1221 days | 29% |
Kirsty B | 10/10 | 1402 days | 18% |
Tyler | 9/10 | 1402 days | 17% |
Laura | 10/10 | 1616 days | 9% |
Javier Williams | 10/10 | 1799 days | 6% |
Bakers | 8/10 | 1890 days | 5% |
Kirstie Gallant | 8/10 | 2074 days | 5% |
thong family | 7/10 | 2102 days | 5% |
TP&MM | 9/10 | 2102 days | 5% |
Trent | 7/10 | 2225 days | 4% |
Sharon | 9/10 | 2255 days | 5% |
ascotandanaussie | 8/10 | 2408 days | 4% |
Sinkbli | 8/10 | 2439 days | 4% |
Jim Harding | 9/10 | 2453 days | 4% |
Debbie Harding | 8/10 | 2459 days | 4% |
orit almog | 9/10 | 2466 days | 4% |
Eversons | 10/10 | 2467 days | 4% |
Jan Hiltermann | 7/10 | 2537 days | 4% |
Vander Plancke Julien | 7/10 | 2551 days | 4% |
Anna Brzezińska Talaga | 10/10 | 2803 days | 3% |
Gena Bond | 10/10 | 2820 days | 3% |
Jason Stalgis | 9/10 | 2825 days | 3% |
Leigh Dodds | 8/10 | 2951 days | 3% |
Stuart Morgan | 10/10 | 2959 days | 3% |
Laurie | 10/10 | 2960 days | 3% |
Tony Waters | 9/10 | 2984 days | 3% |
Henny Lee | 10/10 | 3057 days | 3% |
renee verwey | 9/10 | 3192 days | 3% |
Ron Mollica | 10/10 | 3228 days | 2% |
Robert Jones | 9/10 | 3276 days | 2% |
Elisabeth Tartler | 10/10 | 3482 days | 2% |
Tony Grantham | 7/10 | 3502 days | 2% |
Ricky Shepherd | 7/10 | 3603 days | 2% |
Garry Renton | 8/10 | 3876 days | 1% |
Alex Artigues | 9/10 | 3962 days | 0% |
Serge Garcin | 9/10 | 3962 days | 0% |
Team Kim&James | 9/10 | 4112 days | 0% |
FlyingKiwiGirl | 8/10 | 4265 days | 0% |
Henry Howard | 10/10 | 4324 days | 0% |
Hanna_Malte | 8/10 | 4630 days | 1% |
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Rays Rest Camping Reserve does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
0.76% 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.
93%
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.