Ranking Score Explained

Kia ora, 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 Jucy Rentals.

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

Jucy Rentals

Valid Reviews

102 Valid Reviews

The Jucy Rentals experience has a total of 106 reviews. There are 102 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 4 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 102 valid reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 12
12%
9/10 17
17%
8/10 24
24%
7/10 10
10%
6/10 5
5%
5/10 5
5%
4/10 2
2%
3/10 4
4%
2/10 2
2%
1/10 21
21%

62.25% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Jucy Rentals valid reviews is 62.25% and is based on 102 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

48 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 102 valid reviews, the experience has 48 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.

Below is the distribution of ratings for the 48 face-to-face reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 2
4%
9/10 10
21%
8/10 19
40%
7/10 9
19%
6/10 3
6%
5/10 4
8%
4/10 1
2%
3/10 0
0%
2/10 0
0%
1/10 0
0%

76.46% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Jucy Rentals face-to-face reviews is 76.46% and is based on 48 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.

Weighted Average

64.72%

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
Mizzy 9/10 355 days 100%
Landon 1/10 781 days 29%
Rebecca Johnson 1/10 1085 days 16%
Brewdab Shing 3/10 1572 days 5%
Don’t hire Jucy 1/10 1755 days 2%
Fernanda 1/10 2030 days 2%
Graham Abbott 1/10 2058 days 2%
Gonzalo 1/10 2089 days 2%
Alicia Leong 8/10 2120 days 5%
lee tin diong 8/10 2210 days 4%
Chris Webb 1/10 2303 days 2%
Jithin 10/10 2334 days 4%
Emily 1/10 2423 days 2%
Rachel Doody 1/10 2728 days 1%
Joseph Liu 3/10 2728 days 2%
dudewtf 1/10 2759 days 1%
Meg Perry 1/10 2759 days 1%
Barbara Hirsch 9/10 2806 days 3%
Lucille Laurent 6/10 2811 days 3%
Nanna Overbeck 7/10 2848 days 3%
HAFEZ AMRI SANUSI 8/10 2849 days 3%
Nirmal Singh 1/10 2849 days 1%
Lauren Stephenson 1/10 2849 days 1%
Evan Lloyd 9/10 2877 days 3%
Im K 6/10 2879 days 3%
Thomas Ouin-Lagarde 1/10 2940 days 1%
Charlie Murray 4/10 3002 days 2%
Glenn Berry 1/10 3032 days 1%
Kelley Bollinger 1/10 3063 days 1%
Ulli 9/10 3159 days 2%
Simon Striegel 9/10 3162 days 2%
Toni Gabby 8/10 3180 days 2%
Lucio Maggioli 1/10 3215 days 1%
Philipp Schauerbeck 8/10 3220 days 2%
Theodorou Konstantina 8/10 3221 days 2%
JamesBond 1/10 3306 days 1%
Willy Wayne 1/10 3490 days 1%
Damaris Mayer 4/10 3530 days 1%
Sophia Kadel 10/10 3536 days 2%
Bart Hanssen 7/10 3559 days 2%
Cora and Franzi 8/10 3572 days 2%
Aaron V 9/10 3610 days 2%
Ashley Bucklin 1/10 3641 days 1%
nzkiwi 6/10 3641 days 1%
isabel Zander 8/10 3824 days 1%
Calvin Becker 9/10 3824 days 1%
Leonie Moeller 6/10 3834 days 1%
Jonas Foerch 9/10 3856 days 1%
Lena Wacker 9/10 3867 days 1%
Jacqueline Skelton 5/10 3946 days 1%
Fleur Douglas 10/10 3976 days 1%
Priyanka C 2/10 4007 days 0%
Elleynara 2/10 4099 days 0%
Memain 8/10 4187 days 0%
Lieven De Vlaminck 10/10 4220 days 0%
Neele & Philipp 7/10 4231 days 0%
Katharina Littlemann 9/10 4233 days 0%
Gerard van de Ven 5/10 4316 days 0%
Harald Prinz 8/10 4322 days 0%
Martin & Dee Bellarby 9/10 4596 days 1%
Andreas Kofod-Hansen 8/10 4600 days 1%
R Straathof 8/10 4602 days 1%
Frank Waskikowski 7/10 4609 days 1%
Lindblom 5/10 4612 days 1%
Christina Murphy 7/10 4909 days 1%
Stephane Lebel 8/10 4925 days 1%
Lillian van Wegen 7/10 4940 days 1%
Estel la Prado 5/10 4946 days 1%
Chris 9/10 4946 days 1%
Courtney Wood 8/10 4950 days 1%
Carolin Moberg 7/10 4957 days 1%
Philipp Rau 8/10 4971 days 1%
Ellen Thompson 8/10 4975 days 1%
Ryan Tull 8/10 4975 days 1%
KiwiJames 9/10 5072 days 1%
Aldon Tipuna 10/10 5072 days 1%
SJNZ 10/10 5072 days 1%
russmill 10/10 5072 days 1%
Molly 9/10 5103 days 1%
maggie Webster 8/10 5303 days 1%
Luisa 6/10 5318 days 1%
Paul 7/10 5341 days 1%
marck22 10/10 5345 days 1%
Hugh deLautour 9/10 5345 days 1%
Camenzind 5/10 5365 days 1%
Transworld 9/10 5376 days 1%
Lima 10/10 5376 days 1%
pinkfrogchick 3/10 5376 days 0%
ranker_25 1/10 5376 days 0%
pappito 10/10 5376 days 1%
tclark 8/10 5376 days 1%
puddleo 3/10 5376 days 0%
afs199 8/10 5376 days 1%
Simon Johns 10/10 5376 days 1%
Moondyne 9/10 5407 days 1%
clarrie 10/10 5407 days 1%
LucyPoland 8/10 5672 days 1%
Anneleen 7/10 5681 days 1%
Joosten 8/10 5681 days 1%
Maud 8/10 5755 days 1%
mike brett 7/10 5786 days 1%
Emma Dolk 8/10 6067 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 Jucy Rentals experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.

Recent Reviews Adjustment

-6.05% Adjustment

Recent reviews reflect the experience as it currently operates. This means it's important to get fresh reviews. Some experiences discovered they could get a few good reviews and then, resting on their laurels, discourage any further reviews. This adjustment stimulates experiences to be positively involved in the review generating process and discourages them from manipulating the ranking system in this manner.

What constitutes a recent review is based on the how old it is, what type of experience it is applied to and and what time of year it currently is. Due to the seasonal nature of many businesses, what is considered recent is dynamically adjusted throughout the year.

There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received enough reviews within the last 74 days. The Jucy Rentals experience has 0 recent rankings. Adjustments are according to the following table:

Recent Reviews Adjustment
0 -3.00%
1 -2.63%
2 -1.50%
3 -0.38%
4 -0.00%

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 Jucy Rentals experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.

Days Adjustment
197 -3.01%
198 -3.02%
199 -3.04%
200 -3.05%
201 -3.07%
202 -3.08%
203 -3.10%

Balancing Adjustment

15.06% 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

74%

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.