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 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
97.24%
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 | 2129 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2434 days | 86% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2497 days | 83% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2526 days | 82% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2555 days | 81% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2616 days | 78% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2645 days | 46% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2647 days | 77% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2648 days | 77% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2706 days | 73% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2707 days | 74% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2707 days | 74% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2729 days | 73% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2767 days | 71% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2798 days | 70% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2798 days | 70% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2798 days | 70% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2828 days | 69% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2890 days | 66% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 2982 days | 62% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 2982 days | 62% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 3006 days | 60% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 3040 days | 59% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 3041 days | 32% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 3071 days | 58% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 3071 days | 58% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3102 days | 56% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3132 days | 55% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3132 days | 54% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3132 days | 55% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3187 days | 52% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3193 days | 52% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3224 days | 51% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3235 days | 50% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3255 days | 49% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3255 days | 49% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3316 days | 47% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3399 days | 43% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3405 days | 43% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3405 days | 43% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3406 days | 24% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3467 days | 39% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3497 days | 38% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3517 days | 38% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3558 days | 36% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3589 days | 34% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3711 days | 29% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3772 days | 26% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3802 days | 25% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3802 days | 25% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3803 days | 25% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3803 days | 25% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3827 days | 13% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3833 days | 23% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3834 days | 23% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3834 days | 23% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3863 days | 22% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3863 days | 22% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3863 days | 22% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3864 days | 22% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3924 days | 19% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3924 days | 19% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3955 days | 18% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3955 days | 18% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 3978 days | 17% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 4077 days | 12% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 4077 days | 12% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4108 days | 11% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4167 days | 8% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4167 days | 8% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4198 days | 7% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4228 days | 6% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4228 days | 6% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4320 days | 1% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4321 days | 1% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4352 days | 0% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4352 days | 0% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4443 days | 22% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4460 days | 12% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4502 days | 22% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4527 days | 13% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4533 days | 22% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4533 days | 22% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4533 days | 22% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4533 days | 22% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4533 days | 22% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4542 days | 12% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4564 days | 22% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4564 days | 22% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4564 days | 22% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4580 days | 12% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4686 days | 22% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4686 days | 22% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4808 days | 22% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4808 days | 22% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4839 days | 22% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4867 days | 22% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4867 days | 22% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4867 days | 22% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4867 days | 22% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4898 days | 22% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4898 days | 22% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4929 days | 22% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4929 days | 22% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4929 days | 22% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4929 days | 22% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4959 days | 22% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 4990 days | 22% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 5020 days | 22% |
| marta | 10/10 | 5051 days | 22% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 5051 days | 22% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 5082 days | 22% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 5082 days | 22% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5204 days | 22% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5233 days | 22% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5233 days | 22% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5264 days | 22% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5295 days | 22% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5325 days | 22% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5325 days | 22% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5325 days | 22% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5356 days | 22% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5386 days | 22% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5386 days | 22% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5417 days | 22% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5448 days | 22% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5539 days | 22% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5570 days | 22% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5570 days | 22% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5598 days | 22% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5598 days | 22% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5660 days | 22% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5660 days | 22% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5660 days | 21% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5660 days | 22% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5690 days | 22% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5690 days | 22% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5782 days | 21% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5782 days | 22% |
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
-2.47% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 105 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 | -2.43% |
| 198 | -2.45% |
| 199 | -2.46% |
| 200 | -2.47% |
| 201 | -2.48% |
| 202 | -2.50% |
| 203 | -2.51% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.46% 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.