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
97.07%
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 | 1952 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2257 days | 87% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2320 days | 85% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2349 days | 84% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2379 days | 82% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2440 days | 80% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2468 days | 47% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2471 days | 78% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2471 days | 78% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2530 days | 75% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2530 days | 76% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2530 days | 76% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2552 days | 75% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2591 days | 74% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2622 days | 72% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2622 days | 72% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2622 days | 72% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2652 days | 71% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2714 days | 68% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 2805 days | 65% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 2805 days | 65% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 2829 days | 63% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 2864 days | 62% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 2864 days | 34% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 2895 days | 61% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 2895 days | 61% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 2926 days | 60% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 2956 days | 58% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 2956 days | 57% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 2956 days | 58% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3010 days | 56% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3017 days | 55% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3048 days | 55% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3058 days | 54% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3079 days | 53% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3079 days | 53% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3140 days | 51% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3222 days | 47% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3229 days | 47% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3229 days | 47% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3229 days | 27% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3291 days | 44% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3321 days | 43% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3340 days | 42% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3382 days | 41% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3413 days | 39% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3535 days | 34% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3595 days | 32% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3626 days | 31% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3626 days | 31% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3626 days | 31% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3626 days | 31% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3650 days | 17% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3657 days | 29% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3657 days | 29% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3657 days | 29% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3687 days | 28% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3687 days | 28% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3687 days | 28% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3687 days | 28% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3748 days | 26% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3748 days | 25% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 3779 days | 24% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 3779 days | 24% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 3801 days | 23% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 3901 days | 19% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 3901 days | 19% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 3932 days | 18% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 3991 days | 15% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 3991 days | 16% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4022 days | 14% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4052 days | 13% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4052 days | 13% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4144 days | 9% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4144 days | 9% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4175 days | 8% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4175 days | 8% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4266 days | 4% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4283 days | 2% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4325 days | 2% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4350 days | 0% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4356 days | 0% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4356 days | 0% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4356 days | 0% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4356 days | 0% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4356 days | 0% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4365 days | 0% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4387 days | 21% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4387 days | 21% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4387 days | 21% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4403 days | 12% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4509 days | 21% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4509 days | 21% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4631 days | 21% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4631 days | 21% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4662 days | 21% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4690 days | 21% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4690 days | 21% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4690 days | 21% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4690 days | 21% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4721 days | 21% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4721 days | 21% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4752 days | 21% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4752 days | 20% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4752 days | 21% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4752 days | 21% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 4782 days | 21% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 4813 days | 21% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 4843 days | 21% |
| marta | 10/10 | 4874 days | 21% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 4874 days | 21% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 4905 days | 21% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 4905 days | 21% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5027 days | 21% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5056 days | 21% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5056 days | 21% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5087 days | 21% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5118 days | 21% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5148 days | 21% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5148 days | 21% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5148 days | 21% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5179 days | 21% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5209 days | 21% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5209 days | 21% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5240 days | 21% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5271 days | 21% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5362 days | 21% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5393 days | 20% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5393 days | 20% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5421 days | 21% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5421 days | 20% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5483 days | 20% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5483 days | 20% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5483 days | 20% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5483 days | 21% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5513 days | 20% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5513 days | 21% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5605 days | 20% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5605 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
-4.07% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 42 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 | -4.01% |
| 198 | -4.03% |
| 199 | -4.05% |
| 200 | -4.07% |
| 201 | -4.09% |
| 202 | -4.11% |
| 203 | -4.13% |
| … | … |
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.