Ranking Score Explained

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 Trout Pools 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.

Cymen Crick's avatar

Cymen Crick

Rankers Owner

Trout Pools Reserve

Valid Reviews

24 Valid Reviews

The Trout Pools Reserve experience has a total of 27 reviews. There are 24 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 3 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 24 valid reviews, the experience has 2 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.

Below is the distribution of ratings for the 24 valid reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 1
4%
9/10 6
25%
8/10 4
17%
7/10 6
25%
6/10 3
13%
5/10 2
8%
4/10 1
4%
3/10 0
0%
2/10 1
4%
1/10 0
0%

71.67% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Trout Pools Reserve valid reviews is 71.67% and is based on 24 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.

Weighted Average

75.85%

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
Lucy 2/10 80 days 60%
Clem 8/10 629 days 100%
Matthew 8/10 688 days 94%
Melissa Bradley 8/10 719 days 91%
Matthias 9/10 750 days 89%
shaun mcgillicuddy 7/10 811 days 77%
Rachel Leghorn 9/10 933 days 66%
Vanessa 9/10 1449 days 17%
Joannda 9/10 1480 days 15%
Carl Bright 10/10 1633 days 9%
Fifi and Jay 7/10 2764 days 4%
Christine Allgaier 4/10 2861 days 3%
Niklas 7/10 2873 days 2%
Mark Haydon 6/10 2879 days 3%
Megan Jurgensmeyer 7/10 2944 days 3%
Chas Bronson 9/10 2954 days 2%
Sarah 9/10 2954 days 4%
Michelle Smit 8/10 3094 days 3%
Jon Puttick 7/10 3238 days 3%
Tomas Soldat 5/10 3275 days 2%
Jeff 6/10 3340 days 2%
Bob Fontaine 5/10 3455 days 2%
arnaud paquet 7/10 4037 days 1%
Will and Taylor 6/10 4371 days 0%

Adjustments

No Adjustment

Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Trout Pools Reserve does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.

Balancing Adjustment

4.32% 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

80%

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.