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 Mt Aspiring National 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.
Mt Aspiring National Park
Valid Reviews
17 Valid Reviews
The Mt Aspiring National Park experience has a total of 17 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 17 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 8 |
|
47% |
| 9/10 | 5 |
|
29% |
| 8/10 | 2 |
|
12% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
6% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
6% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
90.59% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Mt Aspiring National Park valid reviews is 90.59% and is based on 17 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
16 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 17 valid reviews, the experience has 16 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 16 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 7 |
|
44% |
| 9/10 | 5 |
|
31% |
| 8/10 | 2 |
|
13% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
6% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
6% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
90.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Mt Aspiring National Park face-to-face reviews is 90.00% and is based on 16 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
90.53%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jasmin | 6/10 | 3250 days | 100% |
| Fides | 10/10 | 3473 days | 93% |
| Christoph | 10/10 | 3473 days | 93% |
| Manuela Opprecht | 10/10 | 3522 days | 87% |
| Hindrek Lind | 9/10 | 3899 days | 46% |
| Danyelle Miller | 10/10 | 3899 days | 46% |
| Marc Schnelanburger | 9/10 | 3900 days | 45% |
| Clarissa Hanck | 10/10 | 4188 days | 14% |
| Galen Licht | 9/10 | 4201 days | 13% |
| Christian | 7/10 | 4206 days | 11% |
| Kate Glover | 10/10 | 4216 days | 11% |
| Kathryn Pisco | 10/10 | 4219 days | 11% |
| Mike Pisco | 10/10 | 4219 days | 11% |
| Clare Cannon | 8/10 | 4223 days | 10% |
| Christian | 8/10 | 4285 days | 4% |
| Kali Lohman | 9/10 | 4319 days | 0% |
| Ton Franke | 9/10 | 4319 days | 0% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Mt Aspiring National Park does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
0.93% 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
91%
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.