G'day, 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
79.26%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tomas Kellner | 10/10 | 3205 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 3232 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 3234 days | 95% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 3244 days | 95% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 3273 days | 81% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 3293 days | 90% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 3298 days | 92% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3559 days | 59% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3565 days | 67% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3577 days | 51% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3577 days | 68% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3584 days | 50% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3586 days | 57% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3613 days | 64% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3921 days | 37% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 3974 days | 33% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 4267 days | 7% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 4267 days | 7% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 4309 days | 3% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 4312 days | 4% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 4312 days | 3% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 4319 days | 3% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 4328 days | 2% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 4329 days | 1% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 4338 days | 1% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 4344 days | 0% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4662 days | 42% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4664 days | 27% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4703 days | 42% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4721 days | 36% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4737 days | 42% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4738 days | 39% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4758 days | 22% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4813 days | 42% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 5016 days | 41% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 5020 days | 27% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 5024 days | 39% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 5030 days | 22% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 5036 days | 42% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 5036 days | 41% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 5039 days | 42% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 5039 days | 41% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 5039 days | 32% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 5039 days | 27% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 5040 days | 42% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 5041 days | 32% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 5042 days | 39% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 5067 days | 32% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 5067 days | 27% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 5069 days | 42% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 5119 days | 27% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 5375 days | 42% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 5376 days | 41% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5381 days | 36% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5384 days | 42% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5384 days | 42% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5386 days | 27% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5386 days | 27% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5387 days | 41% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5387 days | 42% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5391 days | 36% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5391 days | 39% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5393 days | 36% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5394 days | 42% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5397 days | 41% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5397 days | 22% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5398 days | 42% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5407 days | 42% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5409 days | 36% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5418 days | 16% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5421 days | 41% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5422 days | 42% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5666 days | 41% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5675 days | 42% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5676 days | 42% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5679 days | 32% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5694 days | 41% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5697 days | 42% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5745 days | 42% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5746 days | 41% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5746 days | 41% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5748 days | 42% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5754 days | 41% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5762 days | 16% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5768 days | 18% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5771 days | 42% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5780 days | 39% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5786 days | 41% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5792 days | 41% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5799 days | 36% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5803 days | 41% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5841 days | 42% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5871 days | 42% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5878 days | 22% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 5957 days | 42% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5957 days | 41% |
| regw | 10/10 | 5968 days | 42% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 5974 days | 42% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 6037 days | 42% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 6104 days | 41% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 6108 days | 42% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 6108 days | 42% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 6109 days | 42% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 6109 days | 42% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 6110 days | 41% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 6110 days | 41% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 6115 days | 42% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 6127 days | 22% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 6128 days | 42% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 6131 days | 42% |
| John | 8/10 | 6135 days | 41% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 6150 days | 42% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 6160 days | 18% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 6176 days | 41% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 6204 days | 39% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6411 days | 39% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6442 days | 39% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6464 days | 41% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6472 days | 42% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6483 days | 41% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6485 days | 39% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6492 days | 39% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6493 days | 39% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6493 days | 41% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6506 days | 42% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6508 days | 39% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6534 days | 39% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6561 days | 42% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6581 days | 41% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6810 days | 41% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6810 days | 42% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6813 days | 36% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6829 days | 42% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6851 days | 41% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6855 days | 42% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6857 days | 42% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6857 days | 42% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6866 days | 42% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6870 days | 42% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6870 days | 39% |
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
-4.07% 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 | -4.01% |
| 198 | -4.03% |
| 199 | -4.05% |
| 200 | -4.07% |
| 201 | -4.09% |
| 202 | -4.11% |
| 203 | -4.13% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.58% 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.