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 Edwards Stream.
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.
Edwards Stream
Valid Reviews
51 Valid Reviews
The Edwards Stream experience has a total of 52 reviews. There are 51 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 51 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 5 |
|
10% |
| 9/10 | 9 |
|
18% |
| 8/10 | 20 |
|
39% |
| 7/10 | 13 |
|
25% |
| 6/10 | 4 |
|
8% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
79.61% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Edwards Stream valid reviews is 79.61% and is based on 51 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
Weighted Average
78.92%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cirefice bernard | 7/10 | 40 days | 95% |
| David Rydevik | 8/10 | 101 days | 100% |
| Rory M | 8/10 | 101 days | 100% |
| Laura | 8/10 | 284 days | 96% |
| Paul | 7/10 | 315 days | 90% |
| Dan Gleebles | 6/10 | 343 days | 82% |
| Charlie | 10/10 | 374 days | 94% |
| Mladen Savov | 8/10 | 405 days | 91% |
| Max | 7/10 | 435 days | 85% |
| Pauline | 8/10 | 435 days | 89% |
| Lea | 9/10 | 466 days | 89% |
| Lea | 9/10 | 466 days | 89% |
| Aaron | 7/10 | 466 days | 83% |
| Glenda | 8/10 | 496 days | 86% |
| Zoe Grimshaw | 7/10 | 496 days | 81% |
| Susan | 8/10 | 527 days | 84% |
| YP | 8/10 | 680 days | 73% |
| Tom B | 7/10 | 709 days | 67% |
| Linda | 8/10 | 740 days | 68% |
| Steve | 6/10 | 801 days | 54% |
| Marie Perret | 8/10 | 832 days | 59% |
| Henry | 9/10 | 893 days | 53% |
| Jerry & Catherine | 6/10 | 1015 days | 35% |
| Basil | 9/10 | 1015 days | 41% |
| Holly | 10/10 | 1046 days | 38% |
| Niff | 8/10 | 1046 days | 37% |
| Josh | 8/10 | 1046 days | 37% |
| Arie | 8/10 | 1105 days | 32% |
| Romy De Bruin | 8/10 | 1166 days | 27% |
| Corrine | 8/10 | 1166 days | 27% |
| Maria Bidirinis | 9/10 | 1227 days | 23% |
| Jrod | 10/10 | 1380 days | 13% |
| Jenny | 9/10 | 1380 days | 13% |
| Denise Philpott | 7/10 | 1470 days | 8% |
| Erna | 8/10 | 1592 days | 4% |
| Helen | 8/10 | 1715 days | 2% |
| Kirsty | 7/10 | 1835 days | 1% |
| Laura | 9/10 | 1835 days | 1% |
| Arlene | 10/10 | 1866 days | 1% |
| Vladislav Kubalek | 6/10 | 1866 days | 0% |
| Lydia | 8/10 | 1896 days | 1% |
| keri | 8/10 | 1927 days | 1% |
| Benny | 7/10 | 1927 days | 0% |
| Damen Golding | 9/10 | 1927 days | 1% |
| Mike Dennehy | 9/10 | 1927 days | 1% |
| Julia Lima | 10/10 | 1957 days | 1% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 1988 days | 0% |
| A & D | 7/10 | 2049 days | 0% |
| David | 8/10 | 2049 days | 0% |
| Gini | 7/10 | 2141 days | 0% |
| Daniel | 7/10 | 2170 days | 0% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Edwards Stream does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
3.31% 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.
Final Ranking Score
82%
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.