Kia ora, 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
97.18%
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 | 2048 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2353 days | 87% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2416 days | 84% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2445 days | 83% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2475 days | 82% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2536 days | 79% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2564 days | 47% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2567 days | 78% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2567 days | 78% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2626 days | 74% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2626 days | 75% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2626 days | 75% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2648 days | 74% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2687 days | 73% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2718 days | 71% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2718 days | 71% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2718 days | 71% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2748 days | 70% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2810 days | 67% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 2901 days | 63% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 2901 days | 63% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 2925 days | 62% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 2960 days | 61% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 2960 days | 33% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 2991 days | 60% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 2991 days | 60% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3022 days | 58% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3052 days | 57% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3052 days | 56% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3052 days | 57% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3106 days | 55% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3113 days | 54% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3144 days | 53% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3154 days | 52% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3175 days | 52% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3175 days | 52% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3236 days | 49% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3318 days | 46% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3325 days | 45% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3325 days | 45% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3325 days | 26% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3387 days | 42% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3417 days | 41% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3436 days | 40% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3478 days | 39% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3509 days | 37% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3631 days | 32% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3691 days | 29% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3722 days | 28% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3722 days | 28% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3722 days | 28% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3722 days | 28% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3746 days | 16% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3753 days | 27% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3753 days | 27% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3753 days | 27% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3783 days | 25% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3783 days | 26% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3783 days | 26% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3783 days | 25% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3844 days | 23% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3844 days | 23% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3875 days | 21% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3875 days | 21% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 3897 days | 21% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 3997 days | 16% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 3997 days | 16% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4028 days | 15% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4087 days | 12% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4087 days | 13% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4118 days | 11% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4148 days | 10% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4148 days | 10% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4240 days | 6% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4240 days | 6% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4271 days | 5% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4271 days | 5% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4362 days | 1% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4379 days | 0% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4421 days | 22% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4446 days | 13% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4452 days | 22% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4452 days | 22% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4452 days | 22% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4452 days | 22% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4452 days | 22% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4461 days | 13% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4483 days | 22% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4483 days | 22% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4483 days | 22% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4499 days | 13% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4605 days | 22% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4605 days | 22% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4727 days | 22% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4727 days | 22% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4758 days | 22% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4786 days | 22% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4786 days | 22% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4786 days | 22% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4786 days | 22% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4817 days | 22% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4817 days | 22% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4848 days | 22% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4848 days | 22% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4848 days | 22% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4848 days | 22% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4878 days | 22% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 4909 days | 22% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 4939 days | 22% |
| marta | 10/10 | 4970 days | 22% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 4970 days | 22% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 5001 days | 22% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 5001 days | 22% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5123 days | 22% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5152 days | 22% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5152 days | 22% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5183 days | 22% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5214 days | 22% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5244 days | 22% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5244 days | 22% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5244 days | 22% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5275 days | 22% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5305 days | 22% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5305 days | 22% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5336 days | 22% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5367 days | 22% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5458 days | 22% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5489 days | 22% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5489 days | 22% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5517 days | 22% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5517 days | 22% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5579 days | 22% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5579 days | 22% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5579 days | 21% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5579 days | 22% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5609 days | 22% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5609 days | 22% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5701 days | 21% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5701 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
-4.03% 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 | -3.97% |
| 198 | -3.99% |
| 199 | -4.01% |
| 200 | -4.03% |
| 201 | -4.05% |
| 202 | -4.07% |
| 203 | -4.09% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.62% 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.