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 Polynesian Spa.
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.
![](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg width="300" height="300" viewBox="0 0 300 300" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><rect id="bg" width="300" height="300" fill="rgb(46,196,145)" /><path d="m 150 605 Q 206 94 -305 150 Q 206 206 150 -305 Q 94 206 605 150 Q 94 94 150 605 z" fill="rgb(70,136,0)" /><path d="m 150 515 Q 296 4 -215 150 Q 296 296 150 -215 Q 4 296 515 150 Q 4 4 150 515 z" fill="rgb(185,119,255)" /><path d="m 150 176 Q 165 135 124 150 Q 165 165 150 124 Q 135 165 176 150 Q 135 135 150 176 z" fill="rgb(209,59,110)" /></svg>)
Polynesian Spa
Valid Reviews
133 Valid Reviews
The Polynesian Spa experience has a total of 135 reviews. There are 133 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 2 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 133 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 21 |
|
16% |
| 9/10 | 31 |
|
23% |
| 8/10 | 34 |
|
26% |
| 7/10 | 26 |
|
20% |
| 6/10 | 10 |
|
8% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 4/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
78.35% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Polynesian Spa valid reviews is 78.35% and is based on 133 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
122 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 133 valid reviews, the experience has 122 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 122 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 19 |
|
16% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
21% |
| 8/10 | 33 |
|
27% |
| 7/10 | 26 |
|
21% |
| 6/10 | 9 |
|
7% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 4/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
78.61% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Polynesian Spa face-to-face reviews is 78.61% and is based on 122 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
65.13%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ashley Pearce | 1/10 | 456 days | 100% |
| Joonas Lehtomaki | 4/10 | 3027 days | 3% |
| Margot | 7/10 | 3030 days | 6% |
| Philip Sheridan | 7/10 | 3039 days | 5% |
| John Edwards | 9/10 | 3056 days | 6% |
| Cathy La Frenais | 8/10 | 3297 days | 4% |
| Marie Bocquier | 8/10 | 3306 days | 4% |
| Felix | 8/10 | 3341 days | 4% |
| Fabian | 7/10 | 3342 days | 4% |
| Juro | 7/10 | 3342 days | 4% |
| Sandra | 7/10 | 3352 days | 4% |
| Franziska and Sabine | 8/10 | 3360 days | 4% |
| Martina | 8/10 | 3368 days | 4% |
| Jessie Sabine | 7/10 | 4068 days | 0% |
| Matthew Trezise | 7/10 | 4068 days | 0% |
| Frederic Gazzarin | 10/10 | 4073 days | 0% |
| Patricia Gazzarin | 9/10 | 4073 days | 0% |
| Melissa Hermansson | 8/10 | 4076 days | 0% |
| Thi Baut | 9/10 | 4113 days | 0% |
| Alice Berg | 8/10 | 4407 days | 1% |
| nl | 9/10 | 4516 days | 1% |
| Peter Kent | 9/10 | 4766 days | 1% |
| Antoine Lacoste | 6/10 | 4772 days | 1% |
| Hanna Clement | 6/10 | 4773 days | 1% |
| Numa Brouimet | 8/10 | 4775 days | 1% |
| Darina Kvasnicova | 8/10 | 4781 days | 1% |
| Richard Harvey | 9/10 | 4788 days | 1% |
| Mark Bogton | 9/10 | 4788 days | 1% |
| Hannah Bean | 7/10 | 4790 days | 1% |
| Elise Violet | 7/10 | 4792 days | 1% |
| Dominique | 8/10 | 4792 days | 1% |
| Lepied | 8/10 | 4795 days | 1% |
| Kimberley Mills | 10/10 | 4795 days | 1% |
| John Reynolds | 8/10 | 4803 days | 1% |
| Kurt Furuskar | 9/10 | 4819 days | 1% |
| Barsch, Arwed & Gertrud | 10/10 | 4839 days | 1% |
| Jan & Marian | 10/10 | 4882 days | 1% |
| Natascha Rachel | 3/10 | 5090 days | 0% |
| P Bukal | 10/10 | 5124 days | 1% |
| Kendall | 8/10 | 5128 days | 1% |
| Michael Simmang | 10/10 | 5133 days | 1% |
| Dave Patterson | 8/10 | 5136 days | 1% |
| Jerven and Kim | 3/10 | 5138 days | 0% |
| Katy Bourne | 7/10 | 5139 days | 1% |
| Claudio | 3/10 | 5151 days | 0% |
| Walter Peters | 9/10 | 5157 days | 1% |
| Claire Hoyland | 9/10 | 5160 days | 1% |
| Eva Stauderova | 9/10 | 5164 days | 1% |
| Amanda Craig | 7/10 | 5167 days | 1% |
| D Oostrum | 8/10 | 5168 days | 1% |
| C Gobl | 8/10 | 5172 days | 1% |
| Rosey834 | 9/10 | 5235 days | 1% |
| JimBradshaw | 9/10 | 5388 days | 1% |
| KieranE | 7/10 | 5449 days | 1% |
| Victoria Slater | 10/10 | 5484 days | 1% |
| Andy & Louise Dutton | 10/10 | 5497 days | 1% |
| Leonard Vans | 7/10 | 5510 days | 1% |
| Cecile | 9/10 | 5513 days | 1% |
| Maria Lorentzen | 9/10 | 5517 days | 1% |
| Sue Bennett | 9/10 | 5520 days | 1% |
| Robert Trostle | 10/10 | 5523 days | 1% |
| Mark | 8/10 | 5529 days | 1% |
| Bram-Jan M | 8/10 | 5537 days | 1% |
| Sebastian Kramer | 4/10 | 5544 days | 0% |
| Maarten | 9/10 | 5547 days | 1% |
| varenaee | 9/10 | 5585 days | 1% |
| Trisha T | 9/10 | 5600 days | 1% |
| Bue Verrept | 8/10 | 5607 days | 1% |
| Wim Put | 9/10 | 5626 days | 1% |
| Poonam Patel | 10/10 | 5741 days | 1% |
| KYinNZ | 9/10 | 5753 days | 1% |
| monniere | 8/10 | 5754 days | 1% |
| YohanM | 7/10 | 5839 days | 1% |
| David | 9/10 | 5844 days | 1% |
| Andrew | 8/10 | 5844 days | 1% |
| Yvanna | 7/10 | 5863 days | 1% |
| Maria | 8/10 | 5867 days | 1% |
| SarahK | 10/10 | 5877 days | 1% |
| RachelR | 9/10 | 5877 days | 1% |
| SofiaBrazil | 10/10 | 5877 days | 1% |
| MartinG | 8/10 | 5877 days | 1% |
| TatiamT | 10/10 | 5877 days | 1% |
| PellucoFrance | 8/10 | 5878 days | 1% |
| Ole | 8/10 | 5884 days | 1% |
| Tessa | 10/10 | 5894 days | 1% |
| DaraghD | 8/10 | 5901 days | 1% |
| Annika | 4/10 | 5908 days | 0% |
| Kirk | 6/10 | 5912 days | 1% |
| Evangelista | 6/10 | 5916 days | 1% |
| Corinna | 7/10 | 5918 days | 1% |
| Maud | 7/10 | 5948 days | 1% |
| Spyfox | 10/10 | 5950 days | 1% |
| Inga | 7/10 | 5970 days | 1% |
| Sabrina | 9/10 | 5975 days | 1% |
| Nadia | 7/10 | 5977 days | 1% |
| Gayle | 8/10 | 6001 days | 1% |
| Rebekka | 9/10 | 6008 days | 1% |
| Antonella | 10/10 | 6018 days | 1% |
| teamaustria | 9/10 | 6033 days | 1% |
| Katja | 7/10 | 6050 days | 1% |
| Fiona | 10/10 | 6063 days | 1% |
| Louise | 8/10 | 6063 days | 1% |
| fgregory | 10/10 | 6106 days | 1% |
| Bonny Doon | 6/10 | 6107 days | 1% |
| Toni Keown | 3/10 | 6199 days | 0% |
| Naoko | 5/10 | 6210 days | 1% |
| Olaf Penn | 7/10 | 6235 days | 1% |
| Mie Toft Pedersen | 10/10 | 6240 days | 1% |
| Tobias Rahm | 6/10 | 6249 days | 1% |
| Haemnerli | 8/10 | 6249 days | 1% |
| Maruja | 9/10 | 6287 days | 1% |
| Maria | 5/10 | 6287 days | 1% |
| Amanda Finger | 9/10 | 6292 days | 1% |
| Desiree Muri | 10/10 | 6292 days | 1% |
| Andrew Porter | 8/10 | 6292 days | 1% |
| Kay | 9/10 | 6315 days | 1% |
| Martin Nigschit | 6/10 | 6318 days | 1% |
| lawrence Walker | 8/10 | 6318 days | 1% |
| Fiona | 9/10 | 6325 days | 1% |
| Neil Cooke | 7/10 | 6326 days | 1% |
| Willemien | 8/10 | 6336 days | 1% |
| Kimberley Mayer | 9/10 | 6336 days | 1% |
| Kim | 10/10 | 6531 days | 1% |
| Stacey | 7/10 | 6554 days | 1% |
| Michael | 8/10 | 6567 days | 1% |
| Jules | 6/10 | 6572 days | 1% |
| Fran | 7/10 | 6574 days | 1% |
| Dave | 6/10 | 6574 days | 1% |
| Bas Marieke | 8/10 | 6585 days | 1% |
| Detlef | 4/10 | 6588 days | 0% |
| Jenny | 7/10 | 6590 days | 1% |
| Duncan | 7/10 | 6603 days | 1% |
| Nissa | 6/10 | 6609 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 Polynesian Spa experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-3.74% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 60 days. However the Polynesian Spa 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 Polynesian Spa experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -3.68% |
| 198 | -3.70% |
| 199 | -3.72% |
| 200 | -3.74% |
| 201 | -3.76% |
| 202 | -3.77% |
| 203 | -3.79% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
12.91% 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.