G'day, 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 | 145 days | 100% |
HealingforJesus | 7/10 | 175 days | 94% |
Lewis Welburn | 9/10 | 206 days | 100% |
Frank | 10/10 | 236 days | 100% |
can24camp | 8/10 | 267 days | 97% |
Steph | 9/10 | 358 days | 95% |
Joaco periplo | 10/10 | 358 days | 96% |
Celia | 8/10 | 388 days | 92% |
117izy | 7/10 | 388 days | 88% |
Lana Hantzsch | 7/10 | 388 days | 88% |
Abi | 9/10 | 419 days | 92% |
Jan | 4/10 | 419 days | 60% |
Cholly | 8/10 | 449 days | 89% |
Sarah | 10/10 | 480 days | 89% |
Henry | 8/10 | 480 days | 88% |
Christa | 8/10 | 572 days | 82% |
HJR | 9/10 | 602 days | 81% |
Katie | 7/10 | 602 days | 76% |
Rufus | 8/10 | 633 days | 78% |
Mikaela | 6/10 | 633 days | 68% |
Helen E | 9/10 | 633 days | 78% |
Isa | 9/10 | 661 days | 76% |
Cameron Hunter | 8/10 | 661 days | 75% |
Alexandra | 8/10 | 692 days | 73% |
Paige Hayward | 8/10 | 723 days | 70% |
Mo Allgood | 10/10 | 784 days | 66% |
Dave | 8/10 | 784 days | 65% |
Theresa | 9/10 | 876 days | 56% |
Emer | 8/10 | 937 days | 49% |
Bex | 7/10 | 1453 days | 10% |
Alicia | 8/10 | 1483 days | 10% |
Rwesseling | 8/10 | 1514 days | 8% |
Jenna | 8/10 | 1514 days | 8% |
Emma | 9/10 | 1544 days | 8% |
Jackue | 8/10 | 1636 days | 5% |
Mike Smith | 7/10 | 1788 days | 3% |
Diana | 7/10 | 1819 days | 3% |
Rotem | 7/10 | 1849 days | 2% |
Bakers | 8/10 | 1910 days | 3% |
Ester | 9/10 | 1941 days | 3% |
Alison | 10/10 | 2002 days | 2% |
Andy and Julia | 8/10 | 2094 days | 2% |
Sophie | 8/10 | 2094 days | 2% |
Tamara & Brittany | 9/10 | 2245 days | 2% |
Clarke family | 10/10 | 2459 days | 2% |
Mercury Kamsteeg | 7/10 | 2731 days | 1% |
Alba Mateos | 7/10 | 2883 days | 0% |
Daniel Baeyens | 9/10 | 2908 days | 1% |
Leonie Brabers | 8/10 | 2937 days | -1% |
Jayma Dancer | 8/10 | 2949 days | 0% |
Graeme Herbert | 8/10 | 2990 days | 0% |
Zuf Wu | 10/10 | 3023 days | 0% |
Frans Van Schie | 7/10 | 3122 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.