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 Lake Ngaroto.
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.
53 Valid Reviews
The Lake Ngaroto experience has a total of 55 reviews. There are 53 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.
Within these 53 valid reviews, the experience has 1 face-to-face review collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 53 valid reviews:
Rating | Count | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
10/10 | 7 |
|
13% |
9/10 | 11 |
|
21% |
8/10 | 22 |
|
42% |
7/10 | 11 |
|
21% |
6/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
4/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
81.51% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Lake Ngaroto valid reviews is 81.51% and is based on 53 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
82.27%
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 |
---|---|---|---|
Cam | 8/10 | 154 days | 100% |
HealingforJesus | 7/10 | 184 days | 94% |
Lewis Welburn | 9/10 | 215 days | 100% |
Frank | 10/10 | 245 days | 100% |
can24camp | 8/10 | 276 days | 97% |
Steph | 9/10 | 367 days | 94% |
Joaco periplo | 10/10 | 367 days | 95% |
Celia | 8/10 | 397 days | 92% |
117izy | 7/10 | 397 days | 87% |
Lana Hantzsch | 7/10 | 397 days | 87% |
Abi | 9/10 | 428 days | 91% |
Jan | 4/10 | 428 days | 60% |
Cholly | 8/10 | 458 days | 89% |
Sarah | 10/10 | 489 days | 89% |
Henry | 8/10 | 489 days | 87% |
Christa | 8/10 | 581 days | 81% |
HJR | 9/10 | 611 days | 80% |
Katie | 7/10 | 611 days | 75% |
Rufus | 8/10 | 642 days | 77% |
Mikaela | 6/10 | 642 days | 67% |
Helen E | 9/10 | 642 days | 78% |
Isa | 9/10 | 670 days | 76% |
Cameron Hunter | 8/10 | 670 days | 75% |
Alexandra | 8/10 | 701 days | 72% |
Paige Hayward | 8/10 | 732 days | 70% |
Mo Allgood | 10/10 | 793 days | 66% |
Dave | 8/10 | 793 days | 64% |
Theresa | 9/10 | 885 days | 56% |
Emer | 8/10 | 946 days | 49% |
Bex | 7/10 | 1462 days | 10% |
Alicia | 8/10 | 1492 days | 9% |
Rwesseling | 8/10 | 1523 days | 8% |
Jenna | 8/10 | 1523 days | 8% |
Emma | 9/10 | 1553 days | 7% |
Jackue | 8/10 | 1645 days | 5% |
Mike Smith | 7/10 | 1797 days | 3% |
Diana | 7/10 | 1828 days | 3% |
Rotem | 7/10 | 1858 days | 2% |
Bakers | 8/10 | 1919 days | 3% |
Ester | 9/10 | 1950 days | 3% |
Alison | 10/10 | 2011 days | 3% |
Andy and Julia | 8/10 | 2103 days | 2% |
Sophie | 8/10 | 2103 days | 2% |
Tamara & Brittany | 9/10 | 2254 days | 2% |
Clarke family | 10/10 | 2468 days | 2% |
Mercury Kamsteeg | 7/10 | 2740 days | 1% |
Alba Mateos | 7/10 | 2892 days | 0% |
Daniel Baeyens | 9/10 | 2917 days | 1% |
Leonie Brabers | 8/10 | 2946 days | -1% |
Jayma Dancer | 8/10 | 2958 days | 0% |
Graeme Herbert | 8/10 | 2999 days | 0% |
Zuf Wu | 10/10 | 3032 days | 0% |
Frans Van Schie | 7/10 | 3131 days | 0% |
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Lake Ngaroto does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
2.42% 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.
85%
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.