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
79.38%
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 | 2949 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 2976 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 2978 days | 95% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 2988 days | 95% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 3017 days | 79% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 3037 days | 91% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 3042 days | 92% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3303 days | 59% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3309 days | 69% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3321 days | 49% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3321 days | 70% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3328 days | 49% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3330 days | 57% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3357 days | 66% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3665 days | 41% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 3718 days | 37% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 4011 days | 14% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 4011 days | 14% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 4053 days | 8% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 4056 days | 10% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 4056 days | 6% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 4063 days | 8% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 4072 days | 8% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 4073 days | 0% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 4082 days | 8% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 4088 days | 2% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4406 days | 25% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4408 days | 11% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4447 days | 25% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4465 days | 19% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4481 days | 25% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4482 days | 22% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4502 days | 6% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4557 days | 25% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 4760 days | 24% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 4764 days | 11% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 4768 days | 22% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 4774 days | 6% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 4780 days | 25% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 4780 days | 24% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 4783 days | 25% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 4783 days | 24% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 4783 days | 15% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 4783 days | 11% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 4784 days | 25% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 4785 days | 15% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 4786 days | 22% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 4811 days | 15% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 4811 days | 11% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 4813 days | 25% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 4863 days | 11% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 5119 days | 25% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 5120 days | 24% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5125 days | 19% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5128 days | 25% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5128 days | 25% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5130 days | 11% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5130 days | 11% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5131 days | 24% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5131 days | 25% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5135 days | 19% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5135 days | 22% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5137 days | 19% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5138 days | 25% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5141 days | 24% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5141 days | 6% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5142 days | 25% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5151 days | 25% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5153 days | 19% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5162 days | 1% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5165 days | 24% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5166 days | 25% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5410 days | 24% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5419 days | 25% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5420 days | 25% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5423 days | 15% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5438 days | 24% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5441 days | 25% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5489 days | 25% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5490 days | 24% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5490 days | 24% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5492 days | 25% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5498 days | 24% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5506 days | 1% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5512 days | 3% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5515 days | 25% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5524 days | 22% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5530 days | 24% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5536 days | 24% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5543 days | 19% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5547 days | 24% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5585 days | 25% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5615 days | 25% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5622 days | 6% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 5701 days | 25% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5701 days | 24% |
| regw | 10/10 | 5712 days | 25% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 5718 days | 25% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 5781 days | 25% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 5848 days | 24% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 5852 days | 25% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 5852 days | 25% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 5853 days | 25% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 5853 days | 25% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 5854 days | 24% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 5854 days | 24% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 5859 days | 25% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 5871 days | 6% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 5872 days | 25% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 5875 days | 25% |
| John | 8/10 | 5879 days | 24% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 5894 days | 25% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 5904 days | 3% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 5920 days | 24% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 5949 days | 22% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6155 days | 22% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6186 days | 22% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6208 days | 24% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6216 days | 25% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6227 days | 24% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6229 days | 22% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6236 days | 22% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6237 days | 22% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6237 days | 24% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6250 days | 25% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6252 days | 22% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6278 days | 22% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6305 days | 25% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6325 days | 24% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6554 days | 24% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6554 days | 25% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6557 days | 19% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6573 days | 25% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6595 days | 24% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6599 days | 25% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6601 days | 25% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6601 days | 25% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6610 days | 25% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6614 days | 25% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6614 days | 22% |
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
-3.87% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 58 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 | -3.81% |
| 198 | -3.83% |
| 199 | -3.85% |
| 200 | -3.87% |
| 201 | -3.89% |
| 202 | -3.91% |
| 203 | -3.93% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.45% 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.