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 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
97.31%
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 | 2250 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2555 days | 85% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2618 days | 82% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2647 days | 81% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2677 days | 80% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2738 days | 77% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2766 days | 45% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2769 days | 75% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2769 days | 75% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2828 days | 72% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2828 days | 72% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2828 days | 72% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2850 days | 71% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2889 days | 70% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2920 days | 68% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2920 days | 68% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2920 days | 68% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2950 days | 67% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 3012 days | 64% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 3103 days | 59% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 3103 days | 59% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 3127 days | 58% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 3162 days | 57% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 3162 days | 30% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 3193 days | 55% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 3193 days | 55% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3224 days | 54% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3254 days | 52% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3254 days | 51% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3254 days | 52% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3308 days | 50% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3315 days | 49% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3346 days | 48% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3356 days | 47% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3377 days | 46% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3377 days | 46% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3438 days | 43% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3520 days | 40% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3527 days | 39% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3527 days | 39% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3527 days | 22% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3589 days | 36% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3619 days | 35% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3638 days | 34% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3680 days | 32% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3711 days | 30% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3833 days | 24% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3893 days | 22% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3924 days | 20% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3924 days | 20% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3924 days | 20% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3924 days | 20% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3948 days | 11% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3955 days | 19% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3955 days | 19% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3955 days | 19% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3985 days | 17% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3985 days | 17% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3985 days | 17% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3985 days | 17% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 4046 days | 14% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 4046 days | 14% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 4077 days | 13% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 4077 days | 13% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 4099 days | 12% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 4199 days | 7% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 4199 days | 7% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4230 days | 6% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4289 days | 3% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4289 days | 3% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4320 days | 1% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4350 days | 0% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4350 days | 0% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4442 days | 23% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4442 days | 23% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4473 days | 23% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4473 days | 22% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4564 days | 23% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4581 days | 13% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4623 days | 23% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4648 days | 13% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4654 days | 23% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4654 days | 23% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4654 days | 23% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4654 days | 23% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4654 days | 23% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4663 days | 13% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4685 days | 23% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4685 days | 23% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4685 days | 23% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4701 days | 13% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4807 days | 23% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4807 days | 23% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4929 days | 23% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4929 days | 23% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4960 days | 23% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4988 days | 23% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4988 days | 23% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4988 days | 23% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4988 days | 23% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 5019 days | 23% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 5019 days | 23% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 5050 days | 23% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 5050 days | 23% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 5050 days | 23% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 5050 days | 23% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 5080 days | 23% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 5111 days | 23% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 5141 days | 23% |
| marta | 10/10 | 5172 days | 23% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 5172 days | 23% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 5203 days | 23% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 5203 days | 23% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5325 days | 23% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5354 days | 23% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5354 days | 23% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5385 days | 23% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5416 days | 23% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5446 days | 23% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5446 days | 23% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5446 days | 23% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5477 days | 23% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5507 days | 23% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5507 days | 23% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5538 days | 23% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5569 days | 23% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5660 days | 23% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5691 days | 23% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5691 days | 23% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5719 days | 23% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5719 days | 23% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5781 days | 23% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5781 days | 23% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5781 days | 22% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5781 days | 23% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5811 days | 23% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5811 days | 23% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5903 days | 22% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5903 days | 23% |
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
-3.23% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 68 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 | -3.18% |
| 198 | -3.20% |
| 199 | -3.21% |
| 200 | -3.23% |
| 201 | -3.25% |
| 202 | -3.26% |
| 203 | -3.28% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.52% 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
95%
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.