Hi, 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
97.19%
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 | 2068 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2373 days | 86% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2436 days | 83% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2465 days | 82% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2495 days | 81% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2556 days | 78% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2584 days | 45% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2587 days | 77% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2587 days | 77% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2646 days | 73% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2646 days | 74% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2646 days | 74% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2668 days | 73% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2707 days | 71% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2738 days | 70% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2738 days | 70% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2738 days | 70% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2768 days | 69% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2830 days | 66% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 2921 days | 62% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 2921 days | 62% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 2945 days | 60% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 2980 days | 59% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 2980 days | 30% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 3011 days | 58% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 3011 days | 58% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3042 days | 56% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3072 days | 55% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3072 days | 54% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3072 days | 55% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3126 days | 52% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3133 days | 52% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3164 days | 51% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3174 days | 50% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3195 days | 49% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3195 days | 49% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3256 days | 47% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3338 days | 43% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3345 days | 43% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3345 days | 43% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3345 days | 23% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3407 days | 39% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3437 days | 38% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3456 days | 38% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3498 days | 36% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3529 days | 34% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3651 days | 29% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3711 days | 26% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3742 days | 25% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3742 days | 25% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3742 days | 25% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3742 days | 25% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3766 days | 12% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3773 days | 23% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3773 days | 23% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3773 days | 23% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3803 days | 22% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3803 days | 22% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3803 days | 22% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3803 days | 22% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3864 days | 19% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3864 days | 19% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3895 days | 18% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3895 days | 17% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 3917 days | 17% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 4017 days | 12% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 4017 days | 12% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4048 days | 11% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4107 days | 8% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4107 days | 8% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4138 days | 7% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4168 days | 6% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4168 days | 6% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4260 days | 1% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4260 days | 1% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4291 days | 0% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4291 days | 0% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4382 days | 19% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4399 days | 10% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4441 days | 19% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4466 days | 10% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4472 days | 19% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4472 days | 19% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4472 days | 19% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4472 days | 19% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4472 days | 19% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4481 days | 10% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4503 days | 19% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4503 days | 19% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4503 days | 19% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4519 days | 10% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4625 days | 19% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4625 days | 19% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4747 days | 19% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4747 days | 19% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4778 days | 19% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4806 days | 19% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4806 days | 19% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4806 days | 19% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4806 days | 19% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4837 days | 19% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4837 days | 19% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4868 days | 19% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4868 days | 19% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4868 days | 19% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4868 days | 19% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4898 days | 19% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 4929 days | 19% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 4959 days | 19% |
| marta | 10/10 | 4990 days | 19% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 4990 days | 19% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 5021 days | 19% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 5021 days | 19% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5143 days | 19% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5172 days | 19% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5172 days | 19% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5203 days | 19% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5234 days | 19% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5264 days | 19% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5264 days | 19% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5264 days | 19% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5295 days | 19% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5325 days | 19% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5325 days | 19% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5356 days | 19% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5387 days | 19% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5478 days | 19% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5509 days | 19% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5509 days | 19% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5537 days | 19% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5537 days | 19% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5599 days | 19% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5599 days | 19% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5599 days | 19% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5599 days | 19% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5629 days | 19% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5629 days | 19% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5721 days | 19% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5721 days | 19% |
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
-3.75% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 60 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 | -3.70% |
| 198 | -3.72% |
| 199 | -3.74% |
| 200 | -3.75% |
| 201 | -3.77% |
| 202 | -3.79% |
| 203 | -3.81% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.59% 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.