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
97.26%
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 | 2190 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2495 days | 85% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2558 days | 82% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2587 days | 81% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2616 days | 80% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2677 days | 77% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2706 days | 44% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2708 days | 75% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2709 days | 75% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2767 days | 72% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2768 days | 72% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2768 days | 72% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2790 days | 71% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2828 days | 70% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2859 days | 68% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2859 days | 68% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2859 days | 68% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2889 days | 67% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2951 days | 64% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 3043 days | 59% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 3043 days | 59% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 3067 days | 58% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 3101 days | 57% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 3102 days | 29% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 3132 days | 55% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 3132 days | 55% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3163 days | 54% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3193 days | 52% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3193 days | 51% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3193 days | 52% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3248 days | 50% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3254 days | 49% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3285 days | 48% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3296 days | 47% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3316 days | 46% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3316 days | 46% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3377 days | 43% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3460 days | 40% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3466 days | 39% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3466 days | 39% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3467 days | 21% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3528 days | 36% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3558 days | 35% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3578 days | 34% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3619 days | 32% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3650 days | 30% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3772 days | 24% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3833 days | 22% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3863 days | 20% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3863 days | 20% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3864 days | 20% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3864 days | 20% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3888 days | 9% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3894 days | 19% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3895 days | 19% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3895 days | 19% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3924 days | 17% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3924 days | 17% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3924 days | 17% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3925 days | 17% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 3985 days | 15% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 3985 days | 14% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 4016 days | 13% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 4016 days | 13% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 4039 days | 12% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 4138 days | 7% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 4138 days | 7% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4169 days | 6% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4228 days | 3% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4228 days | 3% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4259 days | 1% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4289 days | 0% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4289 days | 0% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4381 days | 20% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4382 days | 20% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4413 days | 20% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4413 days | 20% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4504 days | 20% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4521 days | 10% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4563 days | 20% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4588 days | 10% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4594 days | 20% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4594 days | 20% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4594 days | 20% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4594 days | 20% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4594 days | 20% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4603 days | 10% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4625 days | 20% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4625 days | 20% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4625 days | 20% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4641 days | 10% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4747 days | 20% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4747 days | 20% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4869 days | 20% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4869 days | 20% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4900 days | 20% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4928 days | 20% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4928 days | 20% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4928 days | 20% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4928 days | 20% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4959 days | 20% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4959 days | 20% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 4990 days | 20% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 4990 days | 20% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 4990 days | 20% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 4990 days | 20% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 5020 days | 20% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 5051 days | 20% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 5081 days | 20% |
| marta | 10/10 | 5112 days | 20% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 5112 days | 20% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 5143 days | 20% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 5143 days | 20% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5265 days | 20% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5294 days | 20% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5294 days | 20% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5325 days | 20% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5356 days | 20% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5386 days | 20% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5386 days | 20% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5386 days | 20% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5417 days | 20% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5447 days | 20% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5447 days | 20% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5478 days | 20% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5509 days | 20% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5600 days | 20% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5631 days | 20% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5631 days | 20% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5659 days | 20% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5659 days | 20% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5721 days | 20% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5721 days | 20% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5721 days | 20% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5721 days | 20% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5751 days | 20% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5751 days | 20% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5843 days | 20% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5843 days | 20% |
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
-2.09% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 123 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 | -2.06% |
| 198 | -2.07% |
| 199 | -2.08% |
| 200 | -2.09% |
| 201 | -2.10% |
| 202 | -2.12% |
| 203 | -2.13% |
| … | … |
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
96%
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.