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 Royal Albatross Centre.
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.
Royal Albatross Centre
Valid Reviews
140 Valid Reviews
The Royal Albatross Centre experience has a total of 140 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 140 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 26 |
|
19% |
| 9/10 | 32 |
|
23% |
| 8/10 | 31 |
|
22% |
| 7/10 | 16 |
|
11% |
| 6/10 | 11 |
|
8% |
| 5/10 | 7 |
|
5% |
| 4/10 | 8 |
|
6% |
| 3/10 | 5 |
|
4% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
75.86% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Royal Albatross Centre valid reviews is 75.86% and is based on 140 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
131 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 140 valid reviews, the experience has 131 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 131 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 26 |
|
20% |
| 9/10 | 30 |
|
23% |
| 8/10 | 29 |
|
22% |
| 7/10 | 14 |
|
11% |
| 6/10 | 9 |
|
7% |
| 5/10 | 7 |
|
5% |
| 4/10 | 8 |
|
6% |
| 3/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 1/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
76.26% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Royal Albatross Centre face-to-face reviews is 76.26% and is based on 131 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
79.25%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tomas Kellner | 10/10 | 3215 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 3242 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 3244 days | 96% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 3254 days | 95% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 3283 days | 81% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 3303 days | 90% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 3308 days | 92% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3569 days | 59% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3575 days | 67% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3587 days | 51% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3587 days | 68% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3594 days | 51% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3596 days | 57% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3623 days | 64% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3931 days | 37% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 3984 days | 33% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 4277 days | 7% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 4277 days | 7% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 4319 days | 3% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 4322 days | 3% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 4322 days | 3% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 4329 days | 2% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 4338 days | 2% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 4339 days | 1% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 4348 days | 1% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 4354 days | 0% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4672 days | 42% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4674 days | 27% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4713 days | 43% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4731 days | 37% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4747 days | 43% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4748 days | 40% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4768 days | 23% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4823 days | 42% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 5026 days | 42% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 5030 days | 27% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 5034 days | 40% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 5040 days | 23% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 5046 days | 42% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 5046 days | 42% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 5049 days | 43% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 5049 days | 42% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 5049 days | 32% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 5049 days | 27% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 5050 days | 42% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 5051 days | 32% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 5052 days | 40% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 5077 days | 32% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 5077 days | 27% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 5079 days | 42% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 5129 days | 27% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 5385 days | 42% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 5386 days | 42% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5391 days | 37% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5394 days | 42% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5394 days | 42% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5396 days | 27% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5396 days | 27% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5397 days | 42% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5397 days | 43% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5401 days | 37% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5401 days | 40% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5403 days | 37% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5404 days | 42% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5407 days | 42% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5407 days | 23% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5408 days | 43% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5417 days | 42% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5419 days | 37% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5428 days | 16% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5431 days | 42% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5432 days | 42% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5676 days | 42% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5685 days | 43% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5686 days | 43% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5689 days | 32% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5704 days | 42% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5707 days | 42% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5755 days | 42% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5756 days | 42% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5756 days | 42% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5758 days | 42% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5764 days | 42% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5772 days | 16% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5778 days | 19% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5781 days | 42% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5790 days | 40% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5796 days | 42% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5802 days | 42% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5809 days | 37% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5813 days | 42% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5851 days | 43% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5881 days | 43% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5888 days | 23% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 5967 days | 42% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5967 days | 42% |
| regw | 10/10 | 5978 days | 43% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 5984 days | 42% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 6047 days | 43% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 6114 days | 42% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 6118 days | 42% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 6118 days | 43% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 6119 days | 42% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 6119 days | 42% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 6120 days | 42% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 6120 days | 42% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 6125 days | 43% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 6137 days | 23% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 6138 days | 42% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 6141 days | 42% |
| John | 8/10 | 6145 days | 42% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 6160 days | 42% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 6170 days | 19% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 6186 days | 42% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 6215 days | 40% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6421 days | 40% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6452 days | 40% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6474 days | 42% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6482 days | 43% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6493 days | 42% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6495 days | 40% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6502 days | 40% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6503 days | 40% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6503 days | 42% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6516 days | 42% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6518 days | 40% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6544 days | 40% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6571 days | 42% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6591 days | 42% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6820 days | 42% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6820 days | 42% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6823 days | 37% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6839 days | 43% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6861 days | 42% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6865 days | 42% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6867 days | 42% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6867 days | 43% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6876 days | 43% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6880 days | 43% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6880 days | 40% |
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 Royal Albatross Centre experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-4.06% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 42 days. However the Royal Albatross Centre 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 Royal Albatross Centre experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -4.00% |
| 198 | -4.02% |
| 199 | -4.04% |
| 200 | -4.06% |
| 201 | -4.08% |
| 202 | -4.10% |
| 203 | -4.12% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.57% 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
80%
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.