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
97.33%
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 | 2271 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2576 days | 85% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2639 days | 82% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2668 days | 81% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2697 days | 80% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2758 days | 77% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2787 days | 45% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2789 days | 75% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2790 days | 75% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2848 days | 72% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2849 days | 72% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2849 days | 72% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2871 days | 71% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2909 days | 70% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2940 days | 68% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2940 days | 68% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2940 days | 68% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2970 days | 67% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 3032 days | 64% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 3124 days | 59% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 3124 days | 59% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 3148 days | 58% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 3182 days | 57% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 3183 days | 31% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 3213 days | 55% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 3213 days | 55% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3244 days | 54% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3274 days | 52% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3274 days | 51% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3274 days | 52% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3329 days | 50% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3335 days | 49% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3366 days | 48% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3377 days | 47% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3397 days | 46% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3397 days | 46% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3458 days | 43% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3541 days | 39% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3547 days | 39% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3547 days | 39% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3548 days | 23% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3609 days | 36% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3639 days | 35% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3659 days | 34% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3700 days | 32% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3731 days | 30% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3853 days | 24% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3914 days | 22% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3944 days | 20% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3944 days | 20% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3945 days | 20% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3945 days | 20% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3969 days | 11% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3975 days | 19% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3976 days | 19% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3976 days | 19% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 4005 days | 17% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 4005 days | 17% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 4005 days | 17% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 4006 days | 17% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 4066 days | 14% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 4066 days | 14% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 4097 days | 13% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 4097 days | 13% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 4120 days | 12% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 4219 days | 7% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 4219 days | 7% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4250 days | 6% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4309 days | 3% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4309 days | 3% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4340 days | 1% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4370 days | 0% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4370 days | 0% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4462 days | 24% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4463 days | 24% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4494 days | 24% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4494 days | 23% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4585 days | 24% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4602 days | 14% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4644 days | 24% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4669 days | 14% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4675 days | 24% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4675 days | 24% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4675 days | 24% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4675 days | 24% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4675 days | 24% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4684 days | 14% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4706 days | 24% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4706 days | 24% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4706 days | 24% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4722 days | 14% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4828 days | 24% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4828 days | 24% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4950 days | 24% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4950 days | 24% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4981 days | 24% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 5009 days | 24% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 5009 days | 24% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 5009 days | 24% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 5009 days | 24% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 5040 days | 24% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 5040 days | 24% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 5071 days | 24% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 5071 days | 24% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 5071 days | 24% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 5071 days | 24% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 5101 days | 24% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 5132 days | 24% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 5162 days | 24% |
| marta | 10/10 | 5193 days | 24% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 5193 days | 24% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 5224 days | 24% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 5224 days | 24% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5346 days | 24% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5375 days | 24% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5375 days | 24% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5406 days | 24% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5437 days | 24% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5467 days | 24% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5467 days | 24% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5467 days | 24% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5498 days | 24% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5528 days | 24% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5528 days | 24% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5559 days | 24% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5590 days | 24% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5681 days | 24% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5712 days | 24% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5712 days | 24% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5740 days | 24% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5740 days | 24% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5802 days | 24% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5802 days | 24% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5802 days | 23% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5802 days | 24% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5832 days | 24% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5832 days | 24% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5924 days | 23% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5924 days | 24% |
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
-3.66% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 57 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 | -3.60% |
| 198 | -3.62% |
| 199 | -3.64% |
| 200 | -3.66% |
| 201 | -3.68% |
| 202 | -3.70% |
| 203 | -3.71% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.56% 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.