Hi, 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 Silica Rapids.
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.
Silica Rapids
Valid Reviews
19 Valid Reviews
The Silica Rapids experience has a total of 19 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 19 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 7 |
|
37% |
| 9/10 | 5 |
|
26% |
| 8/10 | 5 |
|
26% |
| 7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 6/10 | 2 |
|
11% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
87.89% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Silica Rapids valid reviews is 87.89% and is based on 19 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
17 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 19 valid reviews, the experience has 17 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 17 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 6 |
|
35% |
| 9/10 | 5 |
|
29% |
| 8/10 | 5 |
|
29% |
| 7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
6% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
88.82% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Silica Rapids face-to-face reviews is 88.82% and is based on 17 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
87.55%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daniela Hintermayr | 8/10 | 2822 days | 100% |
| Sebastian | 10/10 | 2874 days | 99% |
| Maria Eriksson | 10/10 | 2874 days | 99% |
| Brad Dobsky | 8/10 | 3137 days | 79% |
| Suzanne Vermeulen | 6/10 | 3294 days | 60% |
| Michal | 10/10 | 4315 days | 0% |
| Moss | 10/10 | 4589 days | 31% |
| Barry Dunster | 10/10 | 4695 days | 31% |
| Veronica Warren | 10/10 | 4960 days | 31% |
| Derek Woodward | 9/10 | 4992 days | 30% |
| Liz Dolman | 6/10 | 4993 days | 26% |
| Jurgen Muller | 9/10 | 4995 days | 30% |
| Matt Roper | 9/10 | 5326 days | 30% |
| Helen T | 8/10 | 5330 days | 30% |
| Pieter Middeldorp | 9/10 | 5331 days | 30% |
| Torsten Gehrke | 8/10 | 5380 days | 30% |
| kevinp | 9/10 | 5406 days | 30% |
| pedawrds | 10/10 | 5414 days | 31% |
| Wim Put | 8/10 | 5451 days | 30% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Silica Rapids does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
1.37% 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 folk 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
89%
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.