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
97.27%
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 | 2210 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2515 days | 85% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2578 days | 82% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2607 days | 81% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2636 days | 80% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2697 days | 77% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2726 days | 44% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2728 days | 75% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2729 days | 75% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2787 days | 72% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2788 days | 72% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2788 days | 72% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2810 days | 71% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2848 days | 70% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2879 days | 68% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2879 days | 68% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2879 days | 68% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2909 days | 67% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 2971 days | 64% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 3063 days | 59% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 3063 days | 59% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 3087 days | 58% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 3121 days | 57% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 3122 days | 29% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 3152 days | 55% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 3152 days | 55% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3183 days | 54% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3213 days | 52% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3213 days | 51% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3213 days | 52% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3268 days | 50% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3274 days | 49% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3305 days | 48% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3316 days | 47% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3336 days | 46% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3336 days | 46% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3397 days | 43% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3480 days | 40% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3486 days | 39% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3486 days | 39% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3487 days | 21% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3548 days | 36% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3578 days | 35% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3598 days | 34% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3639 days | 32% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3670 days | 30% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3792 days | 24% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3853 days | 22% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3883 days | 20% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3883 days | 20% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3884 days | 20% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3884 days | 20% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3908 days | 10% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3914 days | 19% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3915 days | 19% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3915 days | 19% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 3944 days | 17% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 3944 days | 17% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 3944 days | 17% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 3945 days | 17% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 4005 days | 15% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 4005 days | 14% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 4036 days | 13% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 4036 days | 13% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 4059 days | 12% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 4158 days | 7% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 4158 days | 7% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4189 days | 6% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4248 days | 3% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4248 days | 3% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4279 days | 1% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4309 days | 0% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4309 days | 0% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4401 days | 21% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4402 days | 21% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4433 days | 21% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4433 days | 21% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4524 days | 21% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4541 days | 11% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4583 days | 21% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4608 days | 11% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4614 days | 21% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4614 days | 21% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4614 days | 21% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4614 days | 21% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4614 days | 21% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4623 days | 11% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4645 days | 21% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4645 days | 21% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4645 days | 21% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4661 days | 11% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4767 days | 21% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4767 days | 21% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4889 days | 21% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4889 days | 21% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 4920 days | 21% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 4948 days | 21% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 4948 days | 21% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 4948 days | 21% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 4948 days | 21% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 4979 days | 21% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 4979 days | 21% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 5010 days | 21% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 5010 days | 21% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 5010 days | 21% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 5010 days | 21% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 5040 days | 21% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 5071 days | 21% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 5101 days | 21% |
| marta | 10/10 | 5132 days | 21% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 5132 days | 21% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 5163 days | 21% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 5163 days | 21% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5285 days | 21% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5314 days | 21% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5314 days | 21% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5345 days | 21% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5376 days | 21% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5406 days | 21% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5406 days | 21% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5406 days | 21% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5437 days | 21% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5467 days | 21% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5467 days | 21% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5498 days | 21% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5529 days | 21% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5620 days | 21% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5651 days | 21% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5651 days | 21% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5679 days | 21% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5679 days | 21% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5741 days | 21% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5741 days | 21% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5741 days | 21% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5741 days | 21% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5771 days | 21% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5771 days | 21% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5863 days | 21% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5863 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
-2.38% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 109 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 | -2.34% |
| 198 | -2.36% |
| 199 | -2.37% |
| 200 | -2.38% |
| 201 | -2.39% |
| 202 | -2.40% |
| 203 | -2.42% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.44% 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.