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
97.29%
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 | 2230 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2535 days | 85% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2598 days | 82% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2627 days | 81% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2657 days | 80% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2718 days | 77% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2746 days | 45% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2749 days | 75% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2749 days | 75% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2808 days | 72% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2808 days | 72% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2808 days | 72% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2830 days | 71% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2869 days | 70% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2900 days | 68% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2900 days | 68% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2900 days | 68% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2930 days | 67% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2992 days | 64% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 3083 days | 59% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 3083 days | 59% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 3107 days | 58% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 3142 days | 57% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 3142 days | 30% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 3173 days | 55% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 3173 days | 55% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3204 days | 54% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3234 days | 52% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3234 days | 51% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3234 days | 52% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3288 days | 50% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3295 days | 49% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3326 days | 48% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3336 days | 47% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3357 days | 46% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3357 days | 46% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3418 days | 43% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3500 days | 40% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3507 days | 39% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3507 days | 39% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3507 days | 22% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3569 days | 36% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3599 days | 35% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3618 days | 34% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3660 days | 32% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3691 days | 30% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3813 days | 24% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3873 days | 22% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3904 days | 20% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3904 days | 20% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3904 days | 20% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3904 days | 20% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3928 days | 10% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3935 days | 19% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3935 days | 19% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3935 days | 19% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3965 days | 17% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3965 days | 17% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3965 days | 17% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3965 days | 17% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 4026 days | 14% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 4026 days | 14% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 4057 days | 13% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 4057 days | 13% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 4079 days | 12% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 4179 days | 7% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 4179 days | 7% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4210 days | 6% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4269 days | 3% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4269 days | 3% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4300 days | 1% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4330 days | 0% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4330 days | 0% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4422 days | 22% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4422 days | 22% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4453 days | 22% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4453 days | 21% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4544 days | 22% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4561 days | 12% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4603 days | 22% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4628 days | 12% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4634 days | 22% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4634 days | 22% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4634 days | 22% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4634 days | 22% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4634 days | 22% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4643 days | 12% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4665 days | 22% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4665 days | 22% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4665 days | 22% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4681 days | 12% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4787 days | 22% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4787 days | 22% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4909 days | 22% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4909 days | 22% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4940 days | 22% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4968 days | 22% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4968 days | 22% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4968 days | 22% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4968 days | 22% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4999 days | 22% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4999 days | 22% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 5030 days | 22% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 5030 days | 22% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 5030 days | 22% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 5030 days | 22% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 5060 days | 22% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 5091 days | 22% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 5121 days | 22% |
| marta | 10/10 | 5152 days | 22% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 5152 days | 22% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 5183 days | 22% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 5183 days | 22% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5305 days | 22% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5334 days | 22% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5334 days | 22% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5365 days | 22% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5396 days | 22% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5426 days | 22% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5426 days | 22% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5426 days | 22% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5457 days | 22% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5487 days | 22% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5487 days | 22% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5518 days | 22% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5549 days | 22% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5640 days | 22% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5671 days | 22% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5671 days | 22% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5699 days | 22% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5699 days | 22% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5761 days | 22% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5761 days | 22% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5761 days | 21% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5761 days | 22% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5791 days | 22% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5791 days | 22% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5883 days | 21% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5883 days | 22% |
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
-2.78% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 85 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 | -2.74% |
| 198 | -2.76% |
| 199 | -2.77% |
| 200 | -2.78% |
| 201 | -2.80% |
| 202 | -2.81% |
| 203 | -2.83% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.48% 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.