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
97.16%
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 | 2027 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2332 days | 87% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2395 days | 84% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2424 days | 83% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2454 days | 82% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2515 days | 79% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2543 days | 47% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2546 days | 78% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2546 days | 78% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2605 days | 74% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2605 days | 75% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2605 days | 75% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2627 days | 74% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2666 days | 73% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2697 days | 71% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2697 days | 71% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2697 days | 71% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2727 days | 70% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2789 days | 67% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 2880 days | 63% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 2880 days | 63% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 2904 days | 62% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 2939 days | 61% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 2939 days | 33% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 2970 days | 60% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 2970 days | 60% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3001 days | 58% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3031 days | 57% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3031 days | 56% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3031 days | 57% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3085 days | 55% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3092 days | 54% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3123 days | 53% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3133 days | 52% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3154 days | 52% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3154 days | 52% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3215 days | 49% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3297 days | 46% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3304 days | 45% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3304 days | 45% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3304 days | 26% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3366 days | 42% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3396 days | 41% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3415 days | 40% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3457 days | 39% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3488 days | 37% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3610 days | 32% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3670 days | 29% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3701 days | 28% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3701 days | 28% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3701 days | 28% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3701 days | 28% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3725 days | 15% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3732 days | 27% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3732 days | 27% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3732 days | 27% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3762 days | 25% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3762 days | 26% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3762 days | 26% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3762 days | 25% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3823 days | 23% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3823 days | 23% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3854 days | 21% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3854 days | 21% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 3876 days | 21% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 3976 days | 16% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 3976 days | 16% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4007 days | 15% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4066 days | 12% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4066 days | 13% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4097 days | 11% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4127 days | 10% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4127 days | 10% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4219 days | 6% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4219 days | 6% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4250 days | 5% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4250 days | 5% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4341 days | 1% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4358 days | 0% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4400 days | 21% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4425 days | 12% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4431 days | 21% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4431 days | 21% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4431 days | 21% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4431 days | 21% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4431 days | 21% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4440 days | 12% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4462 days | 21% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4462 days | 21% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4462 days | 21% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4478 days | 12% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4584 days | 21% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4584 days | 21% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4706 days | 21% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4706 days | 21% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4737 days | 21% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4765 days | 21% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4765 days | 21% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4765 days | 21% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4765 days | 21% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4796 days | 21% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4796 days | 21% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4827 days | 21% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4827 days | 21% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4827 days | 21% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4827 days | 21% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4857 days | 21% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 4888 days | 21% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 4918 days | 21% |
| marta | 10/10 | 4949 days | 21% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 4949 days | 21% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 4980 days | 21% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 4980 days | 21% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5102 days | 21% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5131 days | 21% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5131 days | 21% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5162 days | 21% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5193 days | 21% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5223 days | 21% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5223 days | 21% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5223 days | 21% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5254 days | 21% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5284 days | 21% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5284 days | 21% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5315 days | 21% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5346 days | 21% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5437 days | 21% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5468 days | 21% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5468 days | 21% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5496 days | 21% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5496 days | 21% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5558 days | 21% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5558 days | 21% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5558 days | 21% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5558 days | 21% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5588 days | 21% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5588 days | 21% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5680 days | 21% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5680 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
-4.15% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 53 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 | -4.09% |
| 198 | -4.11% |
| 199 | -4.13% |
| 200 | -4.15% |
| 201 | -4.17% |
| 202 | -4.19% |
| 203 | -4.21% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.64% 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.