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
97.28%
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 | 2291 days | 100% |
| David Mansel | 10/10 | 2596 days | 85% |
| Ash S | 10/10 | 2659 days | 82% |
| Louis Manley | 10/10 | 2688 days | 81% |
| Andrew Isb | 10/10 | 2717 days | 79% |
| Alex Jenner | 10/10 | 2778 days | 76% |
| Annie Wang | 10/10 | 2807 days | 45% |
| Mark Geyle | 10/10 | 2809 days | 75% |
| Oliver Keaveney | 10/10 | 2810 days | 75% |
| Richard Everingham | 9/10 | 2868 days | 71% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 2869 days | 72% |
| Matt McGilton | 10/10 | 2869 days | 72% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 2891 days | 71% |
| Rob Morehead | 10/10 | 2929 days | 69% |
| James Harman | 10/10 | 2960 days | 68% |
| dougal s | 10/10 | 2960 days | 68% |
| Snazzi | 10/10 | 2960 days | 68% |
| Peter Good | 10/10 | 2990 days | 66% |
| Graeme Woodward | 10/10 | 3052 days | 63% |
| Mohammed Khudhari | 10/10 | 3144 days | 59% |
| Cheryl Cottine | 10/10 | 3144 days | 59% |
| Carita Johnsson | 9/10 | 3168 days | 57% |
| Susan Langridge | 10/10 | 3202 days | 56% |
| Andrew | 3/10 | 3203 days | 30% |
| Nat Luxton | 10/10 | 3233 days | 54% |
| Halla Malik | 10/10 | 3233 days | 54% |
| Warren Howe | 10/10 | 3264 days | 53% |
| Michael Colavita | 10/10 | 3294 days | 52% |
| Mark Hillman | 8/10 | 3294 days | 50% |
| Tim Clarke | 10/10 | 3294 days | 52% |
| Carol and Ian | 10/10 | 3349 days | 49% |
| Giovanni Sansoni | 9/10 | 3355 days | 48% |
| Lachlan Kennedy | 10/10 | 3386 days | 47% |
| Pim Willemstein | 9/10 | 3397 days | 46% |
| Louise | 10/10 | 3417 days | 46% |
| david john | 10/10 | 3417 days | 46% |
| Sam Walters | 10/10 | 3478 days | 43% |
| Christina Clarke | 10/10 | 3561 days | 39% |
| Julia Davies | 10/10 | 3567 days | 38% |
| Emily Davies | 10/10 | 3567 days | 38% |
| Benoit Berty | 8/10 | 3568 days | 22% |
| Steve Levy | 9/10 | 3629 days | 35% |
| Smith Reynolds | 10/10 | 3659 days | 34% |
| Danguole | 10/10 | 3679 days | 33% |
| Liz Roberts | 10/10 | 3720 days | 31% |
| Jane McRae | 10/10 | 3751 days | 29% |
| Rohan Muir | 9/10 | 3873 days | 23% |
| Tim Bloch | 9/10 | 3934 days | 20% |
| george Burke | 10/10 | 3964 days | 19% |
| Jon Colbert | 10/10 | 3964 days | 19% |
| elaine rowley | 10/10 | 3965 days | 19% |
| Michelle Martin | 10/10 | 3965 days | 19% |
| Judith Goodyear | 8/10 | 3989 days | 10% |
| Stephen Xu | 10/10 | 3995 days | 18% |
| Greg Hall | 10/10 | 3996 days | 18% |
| Jesse | 10/10 | 3996 days | 18% |
| Ashley Bigaran | 8/10 | 4025 days | 16% |
| Lou Julia | 10/10 | 4025 days | 16% |
| Vee Rocket | 10/10 | 4025 days | 16% |
| Michel Lang | 8/10 | 4026 days | 16% |
| Peter Campbell | 10/10 | 4086 days | 13% |
| Roger Palmer | 9/10 | 4086 days | 13% |
| Michael Earle | 9/10 | 4117 days | 12% |
| Andrew Raymer | 8/10 | 4117 days | 12% |
| Kendra Underhill | 10/10 | 4140 days | 11% |
| Tuangpol Kasisil | 10/10 | 4239 days | 6% |
| Dean Schluter | 10/10 | 4239 days | 6% |
| Robert Wieclawski | 9/10 | 4270 days | 4% |
| Geoff Bearne | 9/10 | 4329 days | 1% |
| Brenda Osborne | 10/10 | 4329 days | 2% |
| Susan Rose Williams | 8/10 | 4360 days | 0% |
| Jane Hogarth | 9/10 | 4390 days | 24% |
| Iwao FUJII | 9/10 | 4390 days | 24% |
| Russell | 10/10 | 4482 days | 24% |
| Yiying Zhang | 10/10 | 4483 days | 24% |
| yu wang | 10/10 | 4514 days | 24% |
| Harley12 | 8/10 | 4514 days | 23% |
| sonia hayes | 10/10 | 4605 days | 24% |
| Brett Pawski | 9/10 | 4622 days | 14% |
| Jenny marsden | 10/10 | 4664 days | 24% |
| Katy Glenie | 10/10 | 4689 days | 14% |
| Andrew Oldfield | 9/10 | 4695 days | 24% |
| Ofelia Spycher | 10/10 | 4695 days | 24% |
| Bruce | 10/10 | 4695 days | 24% |
| Bhupesh Bansal | 10/10 | 4695 days | 24% |
| Mark G | 10/10 | 4695 days | 24% |
| Kylie Crawford | 9/10 | 4704 days | 14% |
| Jens Richter | 10/10 | 4726 days | 24% |
| Sarah M | 10/10 | 4726 days | 24% |
| Peter Aimer | 10/10 | 4726 days | 24% |
| Trish Clarkson | 9/10 | 4742 days | 14% |
| Andy Scrase | 10/10 | 4848 days | 24% |
| tony trimble | 10/10 | 4848 days | 24% |
| Roy Jamieson | 10/10 | 4970 days | 24% |
| Chad | 10/10 | 4970 days | 24% |
| mfeild | 10/10 | 5001 days | 24% |
| Charles Lambert | 10/10 | 5029 days | 24% |
| Greg Mauk | 10/10 | 5029 days | 24% |
| Dave Long | 10/10 | 5029 days | 24% |
| Gary_L | 10/10 | 5029 days | 24% |
| ltekapo1 MacLaren | 10/10 | 5060 days | 24% |
| Claudia Risch | 10/10 | 5060 days | 24% |
| rossly | 10/10 | 5091 days | 24% |
| 1785184 | 9/10 | 5091 days | 24% |
| Tooty Fruity | 10/10 | 5091 days | 24% |
| Eileen Lim | 10/10 | 5091 days | 24% |
| Geert_Erika | 10/10 | 5121 days | 24% |
| Monica | 10/10 | 5152 days | 24% |
| RMac | 10/10 | 5182 days | 24% |
| marta | 10/10 | 5213 days | 24% |
| walkpaddleski | 10/10 | 5213 days | 24% |
| Emma Moloney | 10/10 | 5244 days | 24% |
| timezra | 10/10 | 5244 days | 24% |
| markwillers | 10/10 | 5366 days | 24% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 5395 days | 24% |
| rachelandmark | 10/10 | 5395 days | 24% |
| kandj1 | 10/10 | 5426 days | 24% |
| dakerr | 10/10 | 5457 days | 24% |
| Paulie | 10/10 | 5487 days | 24% |
| SandyC | 10/10 | 5487 days | 24% |
| scottdavidson | 10/10 | 5487 days | 24% |
| olivierbonnet | 10/10 | 5518 days | 24% |
| JFAiken | 10/10 | 5548 days | 24% |
| jaredlaverty | 10/10 | 5548 days | 24% |
| Kiwitony | 10/10 | 5579 days | 24% |
| ruthandjosh | 10/10 | 5610 days | 24% |
| stephenlb | 10/10 | 5701 days | 24% |
| shazza | 9/10 | 5732 days | 24% |
| annappoole | 9/10 | 5732 days | 24% |
| Bob Jordan | 10/10 | 5760 days | 24% |
| hev_81 | 9/10 | 5760 days | 24% |
| odedhoffman | 9/10 | 5822 days | 24% |
| bdb3471 | 9/10 | 5822 days | 24% |
| icewalk1 | 8/10 | 5822 days | 23% |
| MistyBell | 10/10 | 5822 days | 24% |
| vince616 | 9/10 | 5852 days | 24% |
| alpanckhurst | 10/10 | 5852 days | 24% |
| paddy | 8/10 | 5944 days | 23% |
| gedeon | 10/10 | 5944 days | 24% |
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
-3.95% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 47 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 | -3.89% |
| 198 | -3.91% |
| 199 | -3.93% |
| 200 | -3.95% |
| 201 | -3.97% |
| 202 | -3.99% |
| 203 | -4.01% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.60% 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.