G'day, 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 Golden Bay Visitor Centre.
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.
Golden Bay Visitor Centre
Valid Reviews
19 Valid Reviews
The Golden Bay Visitor Centre experience has a total of 19 valid reviews. There are no 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 19 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 7 |
|
37% |
| 9/10 | 6 |
|
32% |
| 8/10 | 3 |
|
16% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
5% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
5% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
5% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
86.84% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Golden Bay Visitor Centre valid reviews is 86.84% and is based on 19 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
19 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 19 valid reviews, the experience has 19 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 19 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 7 |
|
37% |
| 9/10 | 6 |
|
32% |
| 8/10 | 3 |
|
16% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
5% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
5% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
5% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
86.84% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Golden Bay Visitor Centre face-to-face reviews is 86.84% and is based on 19 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
88.13%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maxime Ripoche | 6/10 | 3888 days | 95% |
| Stuart Wilson | 9/10 | 3934 days | 99% |
| Evian Bolz | 10/10 | 3936 days | 100% |
| Harel Cliad | 10/10 | 3936 days | 100% |
| nimrod yaron | 10/10 | 3937 days | 100% |
| Fjord | 4/10 | 4228 days | 14% |
| Wayne Kerr | 10/10 | 4231 days | 27% |
| Kiki Wykstra | 8/10 | 4232 days | 26% |
| Yu-Ti Chu | 8/10 | 4235 days | 25% |
| Alice Berg | 9/10 | 4237 days | 25% |
| Camille Coombes | 9/10 | 4237 days | 25% |
| Mathieu Maran | 9/10 | 4237 days | 25% |
| Kathy Arthurs | 9/10 | 4244 days | 23% |
| Frederic Birke | 8/10 | 4246 days | 22% |
| Ken Jones | 10/10 | 4251 days | 22% |
| Collacott | 9/10 | 4258 days | 20% |
| Mary Neustroski | 7/10 | 4258 days | 18% |
| Camille | 10/10 | 4339 days | 0% |
| Lucie | 10/10 | 4339 days | 0% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Golden Bay Visitor Centre does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
1.27% 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
89%
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.