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
97.11%
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 | 1988 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2293 days | 87% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2356 days | 84% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2385 days | 83% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2415 days | 82% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2476 days | 79% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2504 days | 47% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2507 days | 78% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2507 days | 78% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2566 days | 75% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2566 days | 76% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2566 days | 76% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2588 days | 75% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2627 days | 73% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2658 days | 72% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2658 days | 72% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2658 days | 72% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2688 days | 71% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2750 days | 68% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 2841 days | 64% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 2841 days | 64% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 2865 days | 62% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 2900 days | 62% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 2900 days | 33% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 2931 days | 60% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 2931 days | 60% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 2962 days | 59% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 2992 days | 58% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 2992 days | 57% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 2992 days | 58% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3046 days | 55% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3053 days | 55% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3084 days | 54% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3094 days | 53% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3115 days | 53% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3115 days | 53% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3176 days | 50% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3258 days | 46% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3265 days | 46% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3265 days | 46% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3265 days | 27% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3327 days | 43% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3357 days | 42% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3376 days | 42% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3418 days | 40% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3449 days | 38% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3571 days | 33% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3631 days | 30% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3662 days | 29% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3662 days | 29% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3662 days | 29% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3662 days | 29% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3686 days | 16% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3693 days | 28% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3693 days | 28% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3693 days | 28% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3723 days | 26% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3723 days | 27% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3723 days | 27% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3723 days | 26% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3784 days | 24% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3784 days | 24% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3815 days | 23% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3815 days | 23% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 3837 days | 22% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 3937 days | 18% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 3937 days | 18% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 3968 days | 16% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4027 days | 14% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4027 days | 14% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4058 days | 12% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4088 days | 11% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4088 days | 11% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4180 days | 8% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4180 days | 8% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4211 days | 6% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4211 days | 6% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4302 days | 2% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4319 days | 1% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4361 days | 0% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4386 days | 12% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4392 days | 21% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4392 days | 21% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4392 days | 21% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4392 days | 21% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4392 days | 21% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4401 days | 12% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4423 days | 21% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4423 days | 21% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4423 days | 21% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4439 days | 12% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4545 days | 21% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4545 days | 21% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4667 days | 21% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4667 days | 21% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4698 days | 21% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4726 days | 21% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4726 days | 21% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4726 days | 21% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4726 days | 21% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4757 days | 21% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4757 days | 21% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4788 days | 21% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4788 days | 21% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4788 days | 21% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4788 days | 21% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4818 days | 21% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 4849 days | 21% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 4879 days | 21% |
| marta | 10/10 | 4910 days | 21% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 4910 days | 21% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 4941 days | 21% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 4941 days | 21% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5063 days | 21% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5092 days | 21% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5092 days | 21% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5123 days | 21% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5154 days | 21% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5184 days | 21% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5184 days | 21% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5184 days | 21% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5215 days | 21% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5245 days | 21% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5245 days | 21% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5276 days | 21% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5307 days | 21% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5398 days | 21% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5429 days | 21% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5429 days | 21% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5457 days | 21% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5457 days | 21% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5519 days | 21% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5519 days | 21% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5519 days | 20% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5519 days | 21% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5549 days | 21% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5549 days | 21% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5641 days | 20% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5641 days | 21% |
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
-4.05% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 44 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 | -3.99% |
| 198 | -4.01% |
| 199 | -4.03% |
| 200 | -4.05% |
| 201 | -4.07% |
| 202 | -4.09% |
| 203 | -4.11% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.63% 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.