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
96.58%
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 | 597 days | 100% |
| Nick | 9/10 | 3213 days | 3% |
| Mike Dw | 10/10 | 3270 days | 3% |
| Nicole Kasischke | 10/10 | 3276 days | 3% |
| Heather Flanders | 8/10 | 3495 days | 2% |
| Melanie and Pascal | 8/10 | 3522 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Johanna | 9/10 | 3531 days | 2% |
| Tereza Bulova | 9/10 | 3550 days | 2% |
| Bernd Giermann | 8/10 | 3569 days | 2% |
| Magdalena | 7/10 | 3594 days | 2% |
| Kayla | 10/10 | 3613 days | 2% |
| Sean | 10/10 | 3613 days | 2% |
| Louis Nilsson | 10/10 | 3615 days | 2% |
| Lene Nilsson | 10/10 | 3615 days | 2% |
| Janina | 10/10 | 3620 days | 2% |
| Evelyn Rloeh | 7/10 | 3621 days | 2% |
| Gio Zy | 8/10 | 3624 days | 2% |
| Kirsty Smith | 10/10 | 3640 days | 2% |
| Huon | 8/10 | 3857 days | 1% |
| Ana Coulee | 9/10 | 3858 days | 1% |
| Cecile Santiaux | 10/10 | 3858 days | 1% |
| Molly Bogeberg | 9/10 | 3863 days | 1% |
| Jenna Kuittinen | 8/10 | 3864 days | 1% |
| Ben Keiser | 10/10 | 3865 days | 1% |
| Tom Teuber | 10/10 | 3867 days | 1% |
| Anika Danits | 10/10 | 3867 days | 1% |
| Valerie Bernardini | 10/10 | 3873 days | 1% |
| Dan Ramsl | 10/10 | 3878 days | 1% |
| Lauren Dinnage | 10/10 | 3884 days | 1% |
| Patrick Thumeyer | 10/10 | 3884 days | 1% |
| Max | 10/10 | 3885 days | 1% |
| John and Jan | 9/10 | 3886 days | 1% |
| Volker Stroenisch | 10/10 | 3890 days | 1% |
| Josh Symons | 10/10 | 3891 days | 1% |
| Emily Garside | 10/10 | 3892 days | 1% |
| Chandra Macraigne | 7/10 | 3892 days | 1% |
| Horitz | 10/10 | 3897 days | 1% |
| Dani | 10/10 | 3897 days | 1% |
| Lee Sandberg | 8/10 | 3902 days | 1% |
| Tina Rust | 10/10 | 3903 days | 1% |
| William Lendway | 9/10 | 3904 days | 1% |
| Sophie Kalnymsky | 10/10 | 3905 days | 1% |
| Xavier Bistodeau | 10/10 | 3909 days | 1% |
| Quinn McCusker | 10/10 | 3913 days | 1% |
| Maria and Grace | 6/10 | 3915 days | 1% |
| Maria Brauherr | 10/10 | 3916 days | 1% |
| Veronique Kaplan | 10/10 | 3917 days | 1% |
| Christine Schtenker | 10/10 | 3920 days | 1% |
| Kristyna Mokrackoua | 9/10 | 3922 days | 1% |
| Florian Mueller | 10/10 | 3924 days | 1% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3924 days | 1% |
| Iris Kerbler | 10/10 | 3928 days | 1% |
| Livia and Dave | 10/10 | 3930 days | 1% |
| Elisabeth Grabner | 7/10 | 3931 days | 1% |
| Christian Reimund | 9/10 | 3933 days | 1% |
| Stefanie Giese | 10/10 | 3933 days | 1% |
| Kim and Leon | 10/10 | 3937 days | 1% |
| Matthew Hallowell | 10/10 | 3941 days | 1% |
| Justin Kechanski | 8/10 | 3959 days | 1% |
| Steffen and Johannes | 9/10 | 3963 days | 1% |
| Ixtaso Roncal | 10/10 | 4008 days | 1% |
| Naelan Le Borgue | 10/10 | 4240 days | 0% |
| Oliver Pester | 10/10 | 4249 days | 0% |
| Kristina M | 10/10 | 4277 days | 0% |
| Bes | 10/10 | 4283 days | 0% |
| Inge van Noorf | 10/10 | 4337 days | 0% |
| FlyingKiwiGirl | 10/10 | 4430 days | 1% |
| Caroline Jonsson | 10/10 | 4583 days | 1% |
| Jonny Ronnblom | 10/10 | 4583 days | 1% |
| Martin Buchta | 9/10 | 4615 days | 1% |
| Anne Haenchen | 9/10 | 4615 days | 1% |
| Markus | 10/10 | 4626 days | 1% |
| Cornelia Witte | 10/10 | 4626 days | 1% |
| Sarah | 10/10 | 4639 days | 1% |
| Mike Majnik | 10/10 | 4639 days | 1% |
| Pioter Jurkowski | 10/10 | 4674 days | 1% |
| Patrick | 8/10 | 4674 days | 1% |
| Emma | 7/10 | 4674 days | 1% |
| Christin Woelk | 10/10 | 4944 days | 1% |
| Patrick Stoeit | 10/10 | 4954 days | 1% |
| Pete Wilson | 10/10 | 4966 days | 1% |
| Yu-Ti Chu | 9/10 | 4971 days | 1% |
| Alice Berg | 10/10 | 4973 days | 1% |
| Camille Coombes | 9/10 | 4973 days | 1% |
| Jan | 10/10 | 4980 days | 1% |
| Frederic Birke | 10/10 | 4982 days | 1% |
| Glenn Surzur | 8/10 | 4982 days | 1% |
| Caderet | 10/10 | 4982 days | 1% |
| Jan & Jile | 10/10 | 4985 days | 1% |
| Lars Schulz | 10/10 | 4995 days | 1% |
| N smith | 10/10 | 5039 days | 1% |
| Michael Kretzschmar | 10/10 | 5056 days | 1% |
| Tanja Rudolf | 10/10 | 5058 days | 1% |
| Peter Adams | 9/10 | 5339 days | 1% |
| Martin Guillaume | 10/10 | 5341 days | 1% |
| Jeroen Bartos | 9/10 | 5358 days | 1% |
| Jon Winter | 9/10 | 5360 days | 1% |
| Roeland Driessen | 10/10 | 5405 days | 1% |
| Rachel_Flowers | 10/10 | 5436 days | 1% |
| Sid | 10/10 | 5466 days | 1% |
| Alibeare | 10/10 | 5497 days | 1% |
| Susannah Eduart | 10/10 | 5691 days | 1% |
| Ann-Katrine & Sille | 10/10 | 5709 days | 1% |
| Josef & Christine Evers | 9/10 | 5720 days | 1% |
| Petersen | 10/10 | 5732 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 10/10 | 5734 days | 1% |
| Helen T | 10/10 | 6045 days | 1% |
| Bob Lenihan | 10/10 | 6062 days | 1% |
| Radek Hoferek | 9/10 | 6100 days | 1% |
| Pam K | 10/10 | 6103 days | 1% |
| Sabine Locker | 10/10 | 6120 days | 1% |
| csziegler | 10/10 | 6150 days | 1% |
| Rankers Rocks | 10/10 | 6166 days | 1% |
| Tait Suridge | 8/10 | 6177 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 9/10 | 6412 days | 1% |
| Barry Treve | 9/10 | 6417 days | 1% |
| AnjaChrist | 10/10 | 6428 days | 1% |
| qofd | 10/10 | 7111 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
0.29% 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.