Hey, 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 | 3220 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 3247 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 3249 days | 96% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 3259 days | 95% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 3288 days | 81% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 3308 days | 90% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 3313 days | 92% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3574 days | 59% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3580 days | 67% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3592 days | 51% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3592 days | 67% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3599 days | 51% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3601 days | 57% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3628 days | 64% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3936 days | 37% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 3989 days | 32% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 4282 days | 7% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 4282 days | 7% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 4324 days | 3% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 4327 days | 3% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 4327 days | 3% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 4334 days | 2% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 4343 days | 2% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 4344 days | 1% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 4353 days | 1% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 4359 days | 0% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4677 days | 43% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4679 days | 28% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4718 days | 43% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4736 days | 37% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4752 days | 43% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4753 days | 40% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4773 days | 23% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4828 days | 43% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 5031 days | 42% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 5035 days | 28% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 5039 days | 40% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 5045 days | 23% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 5051 days | 43% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 5051 days | 42% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 5054 days | 43% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 5054 days | 42% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 5054 days | 33% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 5054 days | 28% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 5055 days | 43% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 5056 days | 33% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 5057 days | 40% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 5082 days | 33% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 5082 days | 28% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 5084 days | 43% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 5134 days | 28% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 5390 days | 43% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 5391 days | 42% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5396 days | 37% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5399 days | 43% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5399 days | 43% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5401 days | 28% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5401 days | 28% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5402 days | 42% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5402 days | 43% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5406 days | 37% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5406 days | 40% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5408 days | 37% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5409 days | 43% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5412 days | 42% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5412 days | 23% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5413 days | 43% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5422 days | 43% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5424 days | 37% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5433 days | 17% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5436 days | 42% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5437 days | 43% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5681 days | 42% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5690 days | 43% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5691 days | 43% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5694 days | 33% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5709 days | 42% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5712 days | 43% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5760 days | 43% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5761 days | 42% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5761 days | 42% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5763 days | 43% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5769 days | 42% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5777 days | 17% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5783 days | 19% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5786 days | 43% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5795 days | 40% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5801 days | 42% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5807 days | 42% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5814 days | 37% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5818 days | 42% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5856 days | 43% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5886 days | 43% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5893 days | 23% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 5972 days | 43% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5972 days | 42% |
| regw | 10/10 | 5983 days | 43% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 5989 days | 43% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 6052 days | 43% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 6119 days | 42% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 6123 days | 43% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 6123 days | 43% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 6124 days | 43% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 6124 days | 43% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 6125 days | 42% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 6125 days | 42% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 6130 days | 43% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 6142 days | 23% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 6143 days | 43% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 6146 days | 43% |
| John | 8/10 | 6150 days | 42% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 6165 days | 43% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 6175 days | 19% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 6191 days | 42% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 6220 days | 40% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6427 days | 40% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6457 days | 40% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6479 days | 42% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6487 days | 43% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6498 days | 42% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6500 days | 40% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6507 days | 40% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6508 days | 40% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6508 days | 42% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6521 days | 43% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6523 days | 40% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6549 days | 40% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6576 days | 43% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6596 days | 42% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6825 days | 42% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6825 days | 43% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6828 days | 37% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6844 days | 43% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6866 days | 42% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6870 days | 43% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6872 days | 43% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6872 days | 43% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6881 days | 43% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6885 days | 43% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6885 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
-4.04% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 41 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 | -3.98% |
| 198 | -4.00% |
| 199 | -4.02% |
| 200 | -4.04% |
| 201 | -4.06% |
| 202 | -4.08% |
| 203 | -4.10% |
| … | … |
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.