Ranking Score Explained

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 Abel Tasman Canyons.

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

Abel Tasman Canyons

Valid Reviews

61 Valid Reviews

The Abel Tasman Canyons experience has a total of 62 reviews. There are 61 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 61 valid reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 54
89%
9/10 5
8%
8/10 1
2%
7/10 0
0%
6/10 0
0%
5/10 1
2%
4/10 0
0%
3/10 0
0%
2/10 0
0%
1/10 0
0%

98.03% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Abel Tasman Canyons valid reviews is 98.03% and is based on 61 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

6 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 61 valid reviews, the experience has 6 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.

Below is the distribution of ratings for the 6 face-to-face reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 4
67%
9/10 2
33%
8/10 0
0%
7/10 0
0%
6/10 0
0%
5/10 0
0%
4/10 0
0%
3/10 0
0%
2/10 0
0%
1/10 0
0%

96.67% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Abel Tasman Canyons face-to-face reviews is 96.67% and is based on 6 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.

Weighted Average

93.60%

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
Lesley A 10/10 198 days 100%
Michal 10/10 289 days 97%
David Senn 9/10 564 days 83%
Silvia 10/10 592 days 82%
Kez 10/10 592 days 82%
Garry 5/10 654 days 59%
Kelly 10/10 1384 days 16%
Sarah 10/10 1688 days 6%
LP 10/10 1750 days 5%
Carolyn Payne 10/10 2115 days 5%
David Taus 9/10 2115 days 4%
Marjan D 10/10 2145 days 4%
Ines 10/10 2390 days 4%
Engelbert Rose 8/10 2390 days 4%
Alan Koutsaris 10/10 2418 days 4%
Ben Carless 10/10 2479 days 4%
Nicole Kasischke 10/10 2512 days 2%
Zachary Gray 10/10 2754 days 3%
Gloria Huang 10/10 2874 days 3%
Shannon Higgs 10/10 2874 days 3%
Gruet Titaina 10/10 2892 days 2%
Tom Judd 10/10 2905 days 3%
Estelle Leyshon 10/10 3119 days 2%
Sven and Annie 9/10 3162 days 1%
Matthew Hallowell 10/10 3177 days 2%
Xue Rong Kok 10/10 3210 days 2%
Kristen Davies 10/10 3210 days 2%
Eric Ross 10/10 3236 days 2%
Clare_R84 10/10 3454 days 2%
Julie Edwards 10/10 3454 days 2%
Donna Beeson 10/10 3485 days 2%
Stephanie Peck 10/10 3485 days 2%
Lachlan Purvis 10/10 3544 days 2%
Lawrence Radcliffe 10/10 3544 days 2%
tania jones 10/10 3544 days 2%
Jeff van Oostrom 10/10 3575 days 2%
Paul de Bruijn 10/10 3586 days 1%
Jake May 10/10 3605 days 2%
Janina Zwerver 9/10 3853 days 1%
Heidi J 9/10 3941 days 1%
Rebecca Avison 10/10 3971 days 1%
Raymond Ligtenbarg 10/10 4002 days 1%
huneebe 10/10 4185 days 0%
Beth Scrivens 10/10 4185 days 0%
Carrie O'Donnell 10/10 4185 days 0%
Tracey Parks 10/10 4216 days 0%
Anna Li 10/10 4216 days 0%
rickweldon 10/10 4216 days 0%
Julian_ont 10/10 4244 days 0%
Philip Beech 10/10 4275 days 0%
Tobias J 10/10 4275 days 0%
Binestra 10/10 4275 days 0%
C'est_Tina 10/10 4275 days 0%
Christian Marzy 10/10 4275 days 0%
VernonC 10/10 4306 days 0%
Eva_24 10/10 4306 days 0%
Joan and Colin Price 10/10 4307 days 0%
gibblet 10/10 4336 days 0%
mbohall1 10/10 4367 days 0%
lelder 10/10 4367 days 0%
Happyapple 10/10 4641 days 1%

Adjustments

Several adjustments to the weighted average are added to improve relevancy and credibility. These adjustments apply equally to all experiences that meet the criteria.

Sample Size Adjustment

No Adjustment

A reasonable number of reviews are necessary in order for the average to be credible and for an experience to take a prime position within the ranking tables. As such, experiences with only a few reviews have a moderated score. This does not mean that the experience or the reviews can't be trusted. The Abel Tasman Canyons experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.

Recent Reviews Adjustment

-2.70% Adjustment

There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 79 days. However the Abel Tasman Canyons experience does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.

In addition, an experience's ranking score may be adjusted for each day there is no new ranking. After 1 day the adjustment comes into effect. The maximum number of days that can be adjusted for is 200 days. Due to the seasonal nature of many businesses, this adjustment is applied dynamically throughout the year.

The Abel Tasman Canyons experience has been adjusted for 185 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.

Days Adjustment
182 -2.65%
183 -2.67%
184 -2.68%
185 -2.70%
186 -2.71%
187 -2.73%
188 -2.74%

Balancing Adjustment

0.88% 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 customers 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

92%

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.