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
79.22%
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 | 3250 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 3277 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 3279 days | 95% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 3289 days | 95% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 3318 days | 81% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 3338 days | 90% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 3343 days | 92% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3604 days | 59% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3610 days | 67% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3622 days | 51% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3622 days | 67% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3629 days | 50% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3631 days | 57% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3658 days | 63% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3966 days | 36% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 4019 days | 31% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 4312 days | 6% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 4312 days | 6% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 4354 days | 2% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 4357 days | 2% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 4357 days | 1% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 4364 days | 1% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 4373 days | 0% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 4374 days | 0% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 4383 days | 45% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 4389 days | 34% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4707 days | 45% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4709 days | 29% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4748 days | 45% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4766 days | 39% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4782 days | 45% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4783 days | 42% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4803 days | 24% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4858 days | 45% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 5061 days | 44% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 5065 days | 29% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 5069 days | 42% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 5075 days | 24% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 5081 days | 45% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 5081 days | 44% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 5084 days | 45% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 5084 days | 44% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 5084 days | 34% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 5084 days | 29% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 5085 days | 45% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 5086 days | 34% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 5087 days | 42% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 5112 days | 34% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 5112 days | 29% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 5114 days | 45% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 5164 days | 29% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 5420 days | 45% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 5421 days | 44% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5426 days | 39% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5429 days | 45% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5429 days | 45% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5431 days | 29% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5431 days | 29% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5432 days | 44% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5432 days | 45% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5436 days | 39% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5436 days | 42% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5438 days | 39% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5439 days | 45% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5442 days | 44% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5442 days | 24% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5443 days | 45% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5452 days | 45% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5454 days | 39% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5463 days | 18% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5466 days | 44% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5467 days | 45% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5711 days | 44% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5720 days | 45% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5721 days | 45% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5724 days | 34% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5739 days | 44% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5742 days | 45% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5790 days | 45% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5791 days | 44% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5791 days | 44% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5793 days | 45% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5799 days | 44% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5807 days | 18% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5813 days | 20% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5816 days | 45% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5825 days | 42% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5831 days | 44% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5837 days | 44% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5844 days | 39% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5848 days | 44% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5886 days | 45% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5916 days | 45% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5923 days | 24% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 6002 days | 45% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 6002 days | 44% |
| regw | 10/10 | 6013 days | 45% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 6019 days | 45% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 6082 days | 45% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 6149 days | 44% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 6153 days | 45% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 6153 days | 45% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 6154 days | 45% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 6154 days | 45% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 6155 days | 44% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 6155 days | 44% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 6160 days | 45% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 6172 days | 24% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 6173 days | 45% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 6176 days | 45% |
| John | 8/10 | 6180 days | 44% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 6195 days | 45% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 6205 days | 20% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 6221 days | 44% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 6250 days | 42% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6457 days | 42% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6487 days | 42% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6509 days | 44% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6517 days | 45% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6528 days | 44% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6530 days | 42% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6537 days | 42% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6538 days | 42% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6538 days | 44% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6551 days | 45% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6553 days | 42% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6579 days | 42% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6606 days | 45% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6626 days | 44% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6855 days | 44% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6855 days | 45% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6858 days | 39% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6874 days | 45% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6896 days | 44% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6900 days | 45% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6902 days | 45% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6902 days | 45% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6911 days | 45% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6915 days | 45% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6915 days | 42% |
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
-4.10% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 46 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 | -4.04% |
| 198 | -4.06% |
| 199 | -4.08% |
| 200 | -4.10% |
| 201 | -4.12% |
| 202 | -4.14% |
| 203 | -4.16% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.60% 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
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.