Hey, 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
97.22%
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 | 2109 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2414 days | 86% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2477 days | 83% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2506 days | 82% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2535 days | 81% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2596 days | 78% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2625 days | 46% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2627 days | 77% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2628 days | 77% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2686 days | 73% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2687 days | 74% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2687 days | 74% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2709 days | 73% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2747 days | 71% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2778 days | 70% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2778 days | 70% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2778 days | 70% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2808 days | 69% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2870 days | 66% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 2962 days | 62% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 2962 days | 62% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 2986 days | 60% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 3020 days | 59% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 3021 days | 31% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 3051 days | 58% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 3051 days | 58% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3082 days | 56% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3112 days | 55% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3112 days | 54% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3112 days | 55% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3167 days | 52% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3173 days | 52% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3204 days | 51% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3215 days | 50% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3235 days | 49% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3235 days | 49% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3296 days | 47% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3379 days | 43% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3385 days | 43% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3385 days | 43% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3386 days | 24% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3447 days | 39% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3477 days | 38% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3497 days | 38% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3538 days | 36% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3569 days | 34% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3691 days | 29% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3752 days | 26% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3782 days | 25% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3782 days | 25% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3783 days | 25% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3783 days | 25% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3807 days | 13% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3813 days | 23% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3814 days | 23% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3814 days | 23% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3843 days | 22% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3843 days | 22% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3843 days | 22% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3844 days | 22% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3904 days | 19% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3904 days | 19% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3935 days | 18% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3935 days | 17% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 3958 days | 17% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 4057 days | 12% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 4057 days | 12% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4088 days | 11% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4147 days | 8% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4147 days | 8% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4178 days | 7% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4208 days | 6% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4208 days | 6% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4300 days | 1% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4301 days | 1% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4332 days | 0% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4332 days | 0% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4423 days | 21% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4440 days | 12% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4482 days | 21% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4507 days | 12% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4513 days | 21% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4513 days | 21% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4513 days | 21% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4513 days | 21% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4513 days | 21% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4522 days | 12% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4544 days | 21% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4544 days | 21% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4544 days | 21% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4560 days | 12% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4666 days | 21% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4666 days | 21% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4788 days | 21% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4788 days | 21% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4819 days | 21% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4847 days | 21% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4847 days | 21% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4847 days | 21% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4847 days | 21% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4878 days | 21% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4878 days | 21% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4909 days | 21% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4909 days | 21% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4909 days | 21% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4909 days | 21% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4939 days | 21% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 4970 days | 21% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 5000 days | 21% |
| marta | 10/10 | 5031 days | 21% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 5031 days | 21% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 5062 days | 21% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 5062 days | 21% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5184 days | 21% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5213 days | 21% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5213 days | 21% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5244 days | 21% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5275 days | 21% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5305 days | 21% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5305 days | 21% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5305 days | 21% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5336 days | 21% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5366 days | 21% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5366 days | 21% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5397 days | 21% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5428 days | 21% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5519 days | 21% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5550 days | 21% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5550 days | 21% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5578 days | 21% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5578 days | 21% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5640 days | 21% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5640 days | 21% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5640 days | 20% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5640 days | 21% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5670 days | 21% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5670 days | 21% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5762 days | 20% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5762 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
-2.89% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 87 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 | -2.85% |
| 198 | -2.86% |
| 199 | -2.88% |
| 200 | -2.89% |
| 201 | -2.90% |
| 202 | -2.92% |
| 203 | -2.93% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.50% 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.