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 Wharariki Beach Walk.
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.
Wharariki Beach Walk
Valid Reviews
118 Valid Reviews
The Wharariki Beach Walk experience has a total of 118 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 118 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 80 |
|
68% |
| 9/10 | 21 |
|
18% |
| 8/10 | 11 |
|
9% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
4% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
94.75% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wharariki Beach Walk valid reviews is 94.75% and is based on 118 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
98 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 118 valid reviews, the experience has 98 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 98 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 62 |
|
63% |
| 9/10 | 19 |
|
19% |
| 8/10 | 11 |
|
11% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
5% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
93.88% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wharariki Beach Walk face-to-face reviews is 93.88% and is based on 98 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
96.43%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tz | 10/10 | 395 days | 100% |
| Nick | 9/10 | 3011 days | 3% |
| Mike Dw | 10/10 | 3068 days | 3% |
| Nicole Kasischke | 10/10 | 3074 days | 2% |
| Heather Flanders | 8/10 | 3293 days | 2% |
| Melanie and Pascal | 8/10 | 3320 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Johanna | 9/10 | 3329 days | 2% |
| Tereza Bulova | 9/10 | 3348 days | 2% |
| Bernd Giermann | 8/10 | 3367 days | 2% |
| Magdalena | 7/10 | 3392 days | 2% |
| Kayla | 10/10 | 3411 days | 2% |
| Sean | 10/10 | 3411 days | 2% |
| Louis Nilsson | 10/10 | 3413 days | 2% |
| Lene Nilsson | 10/10 | 3413 days | 2% |
| Janina | 10/10 | 3418 days | 2% |
| Evelyn Rloeh | 7/10 | 3419 days | 2% |
| Gio Zy | 8/10 | 3422 days | 2% |
| Kirsty Smith | 10/10 | 3438 days | 2% |
| Huon | 8/10 | 3655 days | 1% |
| Ana Coulee | 9/10 | 3656 days | 1% |
| Cecile Santiaux | 10/10 | 3656 days | 1% |
| Molly Bogeberg | 9/10 | 3661 days | 1% |
| Jenna Kuittinen | 8/10 | 3662 days | 1% |
| Ben Keiser | 10/10 | 3663 days | 1% |
| Tom Teuber | 10/10 | 3665 days | 1% |
| Anika Danits | 10/10 | 3665 days | 1% |
| Valerie Bernardini | 10/10 | 3671 days | 1% |
| Dan Ramsl | 10/10 | 3676 days | 1% |
| Lauren Dinnage | 10/10 | 3682 days | 1% |
| Patrick Thumeyer | 10/10 | 3682 days | 1% |
| Max | 10/10 | 3683 days | 1% |
| John and Jan | 9/10 | 3684 days | 1% |
| Volker Stroenisch | 10/10 | 3688 days | 1% |
| Josh Symons | 10/10 | 3689 days | 1% |
| Emily Garside | 10/10 | 3690 days | 1% |
| Chandra Macraigne | 7/10 | 3690 days | 1% |
| Horitz | 10/10 | 3695 days | 1% |
| Dani | 10/10 | 3695 days | 1% |
| Lee Sandberg | 8/10 | 3700 days | 1% |
| Tina Rust | 10/10 | 3701 days | 1% |
| William Lendway | 9/10 | 3702 days | 1% |
| Sophie Kalnymsky | 10/10 | 3703 days | 1% |
| Xavier Bistodeau | 10/10 | 3707 days | 1% |
| Quinn McCusker | 10/10 | 3711 days | 1% |
| Maria and Grace | 6/10 | 3713 days | 1% |
| Maria Brauherr | 10/10 | 3714 days | 1% |
| Veronique Kaplan | 10/10 | 3715 days | 1% |
| Christine Schtenker | 10/10 | 3718 days | 1% |
| Kristyna Mokrackoua | 9/10 | 3720 days | 1% |
| Florian Mueller | 10/10 | 3722 days | 1% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3722 days | 1% |
| Iris Kerbler | 10/10 | 3726 days | 1% |
| Livia and Dave | 10/10 | 3728 days | 1% |
| Elisabeth Grabner | 7/10 | 3729 days | 1% |
| Christian Reimund | 9/10 | 3731 days | 1% |
| Stefanie Giese | 10/10 | 3731 days | 1% |
| Kim and Leon | 10/10 | 3735 days | 1% |
| Matthew Hallowell | 10/10 | 3739 days | 1% |
| Justin Kechanski | 8/10 | 3757 days | 1% |
| Steffen and Johannes | 9/10 | 3761 days | 1% |
| Ixtaso Roncal | 10/10 | 3806 days | 1% |
| Naelan Le Borgue | 10/10 | 4038 days | 0% |
| Oliver Pester | 10/10 | 4047 days | 0% |
| Kristina M | 10/10 | 4075 days | 0% |
| Bes | 10/10 | 4081 days | 0% |
| Inge van Noorf | 10/10 | 4135 days | 0% |
| FlyingKiwiGirl | 10/10 | 4228 days | 0% |
| Caroline Jonsson | 10/10 | 4381 days | 1% |
| Jonny Ronnblom | 10/10 | 4381 days | 1% |
| Martin Buchta | 9/10 | 4413 days | 1% |
| Anne Haenchen | 9/10 | 4413 days | 1% |
| Markus | 10/10 | 4424 days | 1% |
| Cornelia Witte | 10/10 | 4424 days | 1% |
| Sarah | 10/10 | 4437 days | 1% |
| Mike Majnik | 10/10 | 4437 days | 1% |
| Pioter Jurkowski | 10/10 | 4472 days | 1% |
| Patrick | 8/10 | 4472 days | 1% |
| Emma | 7/10 | 4472 days | 1% |
| Christin Woelk | 10/10 | 4742 days | 1% |
| Patrick Stoeit | 10/10 | 4752 days | 1% |
| Pete Wilson | 10/10 | 4764 days | 1% |
| Yu-Ti Chu | 9/10 | 4769 days | 1% |
| Alice Berg | 10/10 | 4771 days | 1% |
| Camille Coombes | 9/10 | 4771 days | 1% |
| Jan | 10/10 | 4778 days | 1% |
| Frederic Birke | 10/10 | 4780 days | 1% |
| Glenn Surzur | 8/10 | 4780 days | 1% |
| Caderet | 10/10 | 4780 days | 1% |
| Jan & Jile | 10/10 | 4783 days | 1% |
| Lars Schulz | 10/10 | 4793 days | 1% |
| N smith | 10/10 | 4837 days | 1% |
| Michael Kretzschmar | 10/10 | 4854 days | 1% |
| Tanja Rudolf | 10/10 | 4856 days | 1% |
| Peter Adams | 9/10 | 5137 days | 1% |
| Martin Guillaume | 10/10 | 5139 days | 1% |
| Jeroen Bartos | 9/10 | 5156 days | 1% |
| Jon Winter | 9/10 | 5158 days | 1% |
| Roeland Driessen | 10/10 | 5203 days | 1% |
| Rachel_Flowers | 10/10 | 5234 days | 1% |
| Sid | 10/10 | 5264 days | 1% |
| Alibeare | 10/10 | 5295 days | 1% |
| Susannah Eduart | 10/10 | 5489 days | 1% |
| Ann-Katrine & Sille | 10/10 | 5507 days | 1% |
| Josef & Christine Evers | 9/10 | 5518 days | 1% |
| Petersen | 10/10 | 5530 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 10/10 | 5532 days | 1% |
| Helen T | 10/10 | 5843 days | 1% |
| Bob Lenihan | 10/10 | 5860 days | 1% |
| Radek Hoferek | 9/10 | 5898 days | 1% |
| Pam K | 10/10 | 5901 days | 1% |
| Sabine Locker | 10/10 | 5918 days | 1% |
| csziegler | 10/10 | 5948 days | 1% |
| Rankers Rocks | 10/10 | 5964 days | 1% |
| Tait Suridge | 8/10 | 5975 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 9/10 | 6210 days | 1% |
| Barry Treve | 9/10 | 6215 days | 1% |
| AnjaChrist | 10/10 | 6226 days | 1% |
| qofd | 10/10 | 6909 days | 1% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Wharariki Beach Walk does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
0.30% 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
97%
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.