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
97.21%
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 | 2169 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2474 days | 86% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2537 days | 83% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2566 days | 82% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2596 days | 81% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2657 days | 78% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2685 days | 46% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2688 days | 76% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2688 days | 76% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2747 days | 73% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2747 days | 74% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2747 days | 74% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2769 days | 73% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2808 days | 71% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2839 days | 69% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2839 days | 69% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2839 days | 69% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2869 days | 68% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2931 days | 65% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 3022 days | 61% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 3022 days | 61% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 3046 days | 59% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 3081 days | 58% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 3081 days | 31% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 3112 days | 57% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 3112 days | 57% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3143 days | 56% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3173 days | 54% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3173 days | 53% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3173 days | 54% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3227 days | 52% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3234 days | 51% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3265 days | 50% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3275 days | 49% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3296 days | 49% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3296 days | 49% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3357 days | 46% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3439 days | 42% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3446 days | 42% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3446 days | 42% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3446 days | 24% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3508 days | 39% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3538 days | 38% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3557 days | 37% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3599 days | 35% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3630 days | 33% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3752 days | 27% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3812 days | 25% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3843 days | 24% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3843 days | 24% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3843 days | 24% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3843 days | 24% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3867 days | 13% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3874 days | 22% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3874 days | 22% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3874 days | 22% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3904 days | 20% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3904 days | 21% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3904 days | 21% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3904 days | 20% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3965 days | 18% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3965 days | 18% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3996 days | 16% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3996 days | 16% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 4018 days | 16% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 4118 days | 11% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 4118 days | 11% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4149 days | 10% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4208 days | 7% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4208 days | 7% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4239 days | 5% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4269 days | 4% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4269 days | 4% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4361 days | 0% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4361 days | 0% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4392 days | 22% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4392 days | 22% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4483 days | 22% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4500 days | 13% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4542 days | 22% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4567 days | 13% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4573 days | 22% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4573 days | 22% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4573 days | 22% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4573 days | 22% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4573 days | 22% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4582 days | 13% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4604 days | 22% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4604 days | 22% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4604 days | 22% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4620 days | 13% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4726 days | 22% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4726 days | 22% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4848 days | 22% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4848 days | 22% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4879 days | 22% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4907 days | 22% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4907 days | 22% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4907 days | 22% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4907 days | 22% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4938 days | 22% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4938 days | 22% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4969 days | 22% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4969 days | 22% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4969 days | 22% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4969 days | 22% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4999 days | 22% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 5030 days | 22% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 5060 days | 22% |
| marta | 10/10 | 5091 days | 22% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 5091 days | 22% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 5122 days | 22% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 5122 days | 22% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5244 days | 22% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5273 days | 22% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5273 days | 22% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5304 days | 22% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5335 days | 22% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5365 days | 22% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5365 days | 22% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5365 days | 22% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5396 days | 22% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5426 days | 22% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5426 days | 22% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5457 days | 22% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5488 days | 22% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5579 days | 22% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5610 days | 22% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5610 days | 22% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5638 days | 22% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5638 days | 22% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5700 days | 22% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5700 days | 22% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5700 days | 22% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5700 days | 22% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5730 days | 22% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5730 days | 22% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5822 days | 22% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5822 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
-2.00% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 125 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 | -1.97% |
| 198 | -1.98% |
| 199 | -1.99% |
| 200 | -2.00% |
| 201 | -2.01% |
| 202 | -2.02% |
| 203 | -2.03% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.41% 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
96%
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.