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
144 Valid Reviews
The Royal Albatross Centre experience has a total of 144 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 144 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 28 |
|
19% |
| 9/10 | 33 |
|
23% |
| 8/10 | 32 |
|
22% |
| 7/10 | 16 |
|
11% |
| 6/10 | 11 |
|
8% |
| 5/10 | 7 |
|
5% |
| 4/10 | 8 |
|
6% |
| 3/10 | 5 |
|
3% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
76.32% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Royal Albatross Centre valid reviews is 76.32% and is based on 144 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 144 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
89.20%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shirley George | 8/10 | 15 days | 98% |
| Denise Wickham | 10/10 | 76 days | 100% |
| Favre nicolas | 10/10 | 76 days | 100% |
| Laura Wiemer | 9/10 | 166 days | 98% |
| Tomas Kellner | 10/10 | 3398 days | 2% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 3425 days | 1% |
| David | 8/10 | 3427 days | 1% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 3437 days | 1% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 3466 days | 1% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 3486 days | 1% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 3491 days | 1% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3752 days | 1% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3758 days | 1% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3770 days | 1% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3770 days | 1% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3777 days | 0% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3779 days | 1% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3806 days | 1% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 4114 days | 0% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 4167 days | 0% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 4460 days | 1% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 4460 days | 1% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 4502 days | 1% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 4505 days | 1% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 4505 days | 0% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 4512 days | 1% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 4521 days | 1% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 4522 days | 0% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 4531 days | 1% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 4537 days | 0% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4855 days | 1% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4857 days | 0% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4896 days | 1% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4914 days | 0% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4930 days | 1% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4931 days | 1% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4951 days | 0% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 5006 days | 1% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 5209 days | 1% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 5213 days | 0% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 5217 days | 1% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 5223 days | 0% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 5229 days | 1% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 5229 days | 1% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 5232 days | 1% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 5232 days | 1% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 5232 days | 0% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 5232 days | 0% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 5233 days | 1% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 5234 days | 0% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 5235 days | 1% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 5260 days | 0% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 5260 days | 0% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 5262 days | 1% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 5312 days | 0% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 5568 days | 1% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 5569 days | 1% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5574 days | 0% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5577 days | 1% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5577 days | 1% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5579 days | 0% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5579 days | 0% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5580 days | 1% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5580 days | 1% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5584 days | 0% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5584 days | 1% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5586 days | 0% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5587 days | 1% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5590 days | 1% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5590 days | 0% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5591 days | 1% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5600 days | 1% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5602 days | 0% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5611 days | 0% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5614 days | 1% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5615 days | 1% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5859 days | 1% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5868 days | 1% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5869 days | 1% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5872 days | 0% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5887 days | 1% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5890 days | 1% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5938 days | 1% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5939 days | 1% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5939 days | 1% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5941 days | 1% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5947 days | 1% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5955 days | 0% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5961 days | 0% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5964 days | 1% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5973 days | 1% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5979 days | 1% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5985 days | 1% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5992 days | 0% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5996 days | 1% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 6034 days | 1% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 6064 days | 1% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 6071 days | 0% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 6150 days | 1% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 6150 days | 1% |
| regw | 10/10 | 6161 days | 1% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 6167 days | 1% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 6230 days | 1% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 6297 days | 1% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 6301 days | 1% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 6301 days | 1% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 6302 days | 1% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 6302 days | 1% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 6303 days | 1% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 6303 days | 1% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 6309 days | 1% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 6320 days | 0% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 6322 days | 1% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 6324 days | 1% |
| John | 8/10 | 6329 days | 1% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 6343 days | 1% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 6353 days | 0% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 6370 days | 1% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 6398 days | 1% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6605 days | 1% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6635 days | 1% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6657 days | 1% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6665 days | 1% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6676 days | 1% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6678 days | 1% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6685 days | 1% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6686 days | 1% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6686 days | 1% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6699 days | 1% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6701 days | 1% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6727 days | 1% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6754 days | 1% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6774 days | 1% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 7003 days | 1% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 7003 days | 1% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 7006 days | 0% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 7022 days | 1% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 7044 days | 1% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 7048 days | 1% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 7050 days | 1% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 7050 days | 1% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 7059 days | 1% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 7063 days | 1% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 7063 days | 1% |
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
-0.15% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 116 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 14 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 11 | -0.12% |
| 12 | -0.13% |
| 13 | -0.14% |
| 14 | -0.15% |
| 15 | -0.17% |
| 16 | -0.18% |
| 17 | -0.19% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.13% 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
90%
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.