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
97.26%
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 | 2149 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2454 days | 86% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2517 days | 83% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2546 days | 82% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2576 days | 81% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2637 days | 78% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2665 days | 46% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2668 days | 77% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2668 days | 77% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2727 days | 73% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2727 days | 74% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2727 days | 74% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2749 days | 73% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2788 days | 71% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2819 days | 70% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2819 days | 70% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2819 days | 70% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2849 days | 69% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2911 days | 66% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 3002 days | 62% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 3002 days | 62% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 3026 days | 60% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 3061 days | 59% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 3061 days | 32% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 3092 days | 58% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 3092 days | 58% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3123 days | 56% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3153 days | 55% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3153 days | 54% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3153 days | 55% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3207 days | 52% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3214 days | 52% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3245 days | 51% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3255 days | 50% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3276 days | 49% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3276 days | 49% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3337 days | 47% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3419 days | 43% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3426 days | 43% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3426 days | 43% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3426 days | 25% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3488 days | 39% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3518 days | 38% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3537 days | 38% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3579 days | 36% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3610 days | 34% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3732 days | 29% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3792 days | 26% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3823 days | 25% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3823 days | 25% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3823 days | 25% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3823 days | 25% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3847 days | 14% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3854 days | 23% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3854 days | 23% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3854 days | 23% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3884 days | 22% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3884 days | 22% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3884 days | 22% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3884 days | 22% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3945 days | 19% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3945 days | 19% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3976 days | 18% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3976 days | 17% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 3998 days | 17% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 4098 days | 12% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 4098 days | 12% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4129 days | 11% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4188 days | 8% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4188 days | 8% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4219 days | 7% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4249 days | 5% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4249 days | 5% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4341 days | 1% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4341 days | 1% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4372 days | 0% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4372 days | 0% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4463 days | 23% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4480 days | 13% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4522 days | 23% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4547 days | 14% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4553 days | 22% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4553 days | 23% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4553 days | 23% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4553 days | 23% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4553 days | 23% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4562 days | 13% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4584 days | 23% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4584 days | 23% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4584 days | 23% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4600 days | 13% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4706 days | 23% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4706 days | 23% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4828 days | 23% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4828 days | 23% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4859 days | 23% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4887 days | 23% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4887 days | 23% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4887 days | 23% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4887 days | 23% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4918 days | 23% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4918 days | 23% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4949 days | 23% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4949 days | 22% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4949 days | 23% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4949 days | 23% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4979 days | 23% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 5010 days | 23% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 5040 days | 23% |
| marta | 10/10 | 5071 days | 23% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 5071 days | 23% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 5102 days | 23% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 5102 days | 23% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5224 days | 23% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5253 days | 23% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5253 days | 23% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5284 days | 23% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5315 days | 23% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5345 days | 23% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5345 days | 23% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5345 days | 23% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5376 days | 23% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5406 days | 23% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5406 days | 23% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5437 days | 23% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5468 days | 23% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5559 days | 23% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5590 days | 22% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5590 days | 22% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5618 days | 23% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5618 days | 22% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5680 days | 22% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5680 days | 22% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5680 days | 22% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5680 days | 23% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5710 days | 22% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5710 days | 23% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5802 days | 22% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5802 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
-2.15% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 118 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 | -2.12% |
| 198 | -2.13% |
| 199 | -2.14% |
| 200 | -2.15% |
| 201 | -2.16% |
| 202 | -2.17% |
| 203 | -2.18% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.42% 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.