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 Alpine Recreation.
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.
Alpine Recreation
Valid Reviews
139 Valid Reviews
The Alpine Recreation experience has a total of 139 valid reviews. There are no 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 139 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 104 |
|
75% |
| 9/10 | 24 |
|
17% |
| 8/10 | 10 |
|
7% |
| 7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
96.33% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Alpine Recreation valid reviews is 96.33% and is based on 139 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
7 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 139 valid reviews, the experience has 7 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 7 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 2 |
|
29% |
| 9/10 | 3 |
|
43% |
| 8/10 | 2 |
|
29% |
| 7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
90.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Alpine Recreation face-to-face reviews is 90.00% and is based on 7 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
97.21%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Mullins | 10/10 | 2089 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2394 days | 86% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2457 days | 83% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2486 days | 82% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2515 days | 81% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2576 days | 78% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2605 days | 45% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2607 days | 77% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2608 days | 77% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2666 days | 73% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2667 days | 74% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2667 days | 74% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2689 days | 73% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2727 days | 71% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2758 days | 70% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2758 days | 70% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2758 days | 70% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2788 days | 69% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2850 days | 66% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 2942 days | 62% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 2942 days | 62% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 2966 days | 60% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 3000 days | 59% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 3001 days | 31% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 3031 days | 58% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 3031 days | 58% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3062 days | 56% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3092 days | 55% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3092 days | 54% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3092 days | 55% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3147 days | 52% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3153 days | 52% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3184 days | 51% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3195 days | 50% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3215 days | 49% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3215 days | 49% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3276 days | 47% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3359 days | 43% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3365 days | 43% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3365 days | 43% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3366 days | 24% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3427 days | 39% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3457 days | 38% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3477 days | 38% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3518 days | 36% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3549 days | 34% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3671 days | 29% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3732 days | 26% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3762 days | 25% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3762 days | 25% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3763 days | 25% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3763 days | 25% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3787 days | 13% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3793 days | 23% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3794 days | 23% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3794 days | 23% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3823 days | 22% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3823 days | 22% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3823 days | 22% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3824 days | 22% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3884 days | 19% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3884 days | 19% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3915 days | 18% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3915 days | 17% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 3938 days | 17% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 4037 days | 12% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 4037 days | 12% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4068 days | 11% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4127 days | 8% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4127 days | 8% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4158 days | 7% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4188 days | 6% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4188 days | 6% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4280 days | 1% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4281 days | 1% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4312 days | 0% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4312 days | 0% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4403 days | 20% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4420 days | 11% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4462 days | 20% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4487 days | 11% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4493 days | 20% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4493 days | 20% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4493 days | 20% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4493 days | 20% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4493 days | 20% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4502 days | 11% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4524 days | 20% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4524 days | 20% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4524 days | 20% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4540 days | 11% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4646 days | 20% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4646 days | 20% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4768 days | 20% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4768 days | 20% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4799 days | 20% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4827 days | 20% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4827 days | 20% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4827 days | 20% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4827 days | 20% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4858 days | 20% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4858 days | 20% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4889 days | 20% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4889 days | 20% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4889 days | 20% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4889 days | 20% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4919 days | 20% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 4950 days | 20% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 4980 days | 20% |
| marta | 10/10 | 5011 days | 20% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 5011 days | 20% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 5042 days | 20% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 5042 days | 20% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5164 days | 20% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5193 days | 20% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5193 days | 20% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5224 days | 20% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5255 days | 20% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5285 days | 20% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5285 days | 20% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5285 days | 20% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5316 days | 20% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5346 days | 20% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5346 days | 20% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5377 days | 20% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5408 days | 20% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5499 days | 20% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5530 days | 20% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5530 days | 20% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5558 days | 20% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5558 days | 20% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5620 days | 20% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5620 days | 20% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5620 days | 20% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5620 days | 20% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5650 days | 20% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5650 days | 20% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5742 days | 20% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5742 days | 20% |
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 Alpine Recreation experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-3.34% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 70 days. However the Alpine Recreation 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 Alpine Recreation experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -3.29% |
| 198 | -3.30% |
| 199 | -3.32% |
| 200 | -3.34% |
| 201 | -3.35% |
| 202 | -3.37% |
| 203 | -3.39% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.55% 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
94%
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.