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
96.45%
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 | 415 days | 100% |
| Nick | 9/10 | 3031 days | 3% |
| Mike Dw | 10/10 | 3088 days | 3% |
| Nicole Kasischke | 10/10 | 3094 days | 3% |
| Heather Flanders | 8/10 | 3313 days | 2% |
| Melanie and Pascal | 8/10 | 3340 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Johanna | 9/10 | 3349 days | 2% |
| Tereza Bulova | 9/10 | 3368 days | 2% |
| Bernd Giermann | 8/10 | 3387 days | 2% |
| Magdalena | 7/10 | 3412 days | 2% |
| Kayla | 10/10 | 3431 days | 2% |
| Sean | 10/10 | 3431 days | 2% |
| Louis Nilsson | 10/10 | 3433 days | 2% |
| Lene Nilsson | 10/10 | 3433 days | 2% |
| Janina | 10/10 | 3438 days | 2% |
| Evelyn Rloeh | 7/10 | 3439 days | 2% |
| Gio Zy | 8/10 | 3442 days | 2% |
| Kirsty Smith | 10/10 | 3458 days | 2% |
| Huon | 8/10 | 3675 days | 1% |
| Ana Coulee | 9/10 | 3676 days | 1% |
| Cecile Santiaux | 10/10 | 3676 days | 1% |
| Molly Bogeberg | 9/10 | 3681 days | 1% |
| Jenna Kuittinen | 8/10 | 3682 days | 1% |
| Ben Keiser | 10/10 | 3683 days | 1% |
| Tom Teuber | 10/10 | 3685 days | 1% |
| Anika Danits | 10/10 | 3685 days | 1% |
| Valerie Bernardini | 10/10 | 3691 days | 1% |
| Dan Ramsl | 10/10 | 3696 days | 1% |
| Lauren Dinnage | 10/10 | 3702 days | 1% |
| Patrick Thumeyer | 10/10 | 3702 days | 1% |
| Max | 10/10 | 3703 days | 1% |
| John and Jan | 9/10 | 3704 days | 1% |
| Volker Stroenisch | 10/10 | 3708 days | 1% |
| Josh Symons | 10/10 | 3709 days | 1% |
| Emily Garside | 10/10 | 3710 days | 1% |
| Chandra Macraigne | 7/10 | 3710 days | 1% |
| Horitz | 10/10 | 3715 days | 1% |
| Dani | 10/10 | 3715 days | 1% |
| Lee Sandberg | 8/10 | 3720 days | 1% |
| Tina Rust | 10/10 | 3721 days | 1% |
| William Lendway | 9/10 | 3722 days | 1% |
| Sophie Kalnymsky | 10/10 | 3723 days | 1% |
| Xavier Bistodeau | 10/10 | 3727 days | 1% |
| Quinn McCusker | 10/10 | 3731 days | 1% |
| Maria and Grace | 6/10 | 3733 days | 1% |
| Maria Brauherr | 10/10 | 3734 days | 1% |
| Veronique Kaplan | 10/10 | 3735 days | 1% |
| Christine Schtenker | 10/10 | 3738 days | 1% |
| Kristyna Mokrackoua | 9/10 | 3740 days | 1% |
| Florian Mueller | 10/10 | 3742 days | 1% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3742 days | 1% |
| Iris Kerbler | 10/10 | 3746 days | 1% |
| Livia and Dave | 10/10 | 3748 days | 1% |
| Elisabeth Grabner | 7/10 | 3749 days | 1% |
| Christian Reimund | 9/10 | 3751 days | 1% |
| Stefanie Giese | 10/10 | 3751 days | 1% |
| Kim and Leon | 10/10 | 3755 days | 1% |
| Matthew Hallowell | 10/10 | 3759 days | 1% |
| Justin Kechanski | 8/10 | 3777 days | 1% |
| Steffen and Johannes | 9/10 | 3781 days | 1% |
| Ixtaso Roncal | 10/10 | 3826 days | 1% |
| Naelan Le Borgue | 10/10 | 4058 days | 0% |
| Oliver Pester | 10/10 | 4067 days | 0% |
| Kristina M | 10/10 | 4095 days | 0% |
| Bes | 10/10 | 4101 days | 0% |
| Inge van Noorf | 10/10 | 4155 days | 0% |
| FlyingKiwiGirl | 10/10 | 4248 days | 0% |
| Caroline Jonsson | 10/10 | 4401 days | 1% |
| Jonny Ronnblom | 10/10 | 4401 days | 1% |
| Martin Buchta | 9/10 | 4433 days | 1% |
| Anne Haenchen | 9/10 | 4433 days | 1% |
| Markus | 10/10 | 4444 days | 1% |
| Cornelia Witte | 10/10 | 4444 days | 1% |
| Sarah | 10/10 | 4457 days | 1% |
| Mike Majnik | 10/10 | 4457 days | 1% |
| Pioter Jurkowski | 10/10 | 4492 days | 1% |
| Patrick | 8/10 | 4492 days | 1% |
| Emma | 7/10 | 4492 days | 1% |
| Christin Woelk | 10/10 | 4762 days | 1% |
| Patrick Stoeit | 10/10 | 4772 days | 1% |
| Pete Wilson | 10/10 | 4784 days | 1% |
| Yu-Ti Chu | 9/10 | 4789 days | 1% |
| Alice Berg | 10/10 | 4791 days | 1% |
| Camille Coombes | 9/10 | 4791 days | 1% |
| Jan | 10/10 | 4798 days | 1% |
| Frederic Birke | 10/10 | 4800 days | 1% |
| Glenn Surzur | 8/10 | 4800 days | 1% |
| Caderet | 10/10 | 4800 days | 1% |
| Jan & Jile | 10/10 | 4803 days | 1% |
| Lars Schulz | 10/10 | 4813 days | 1% |
| N smith | 10/10 | 4857 days | 1% |
| Michael Kretzschmar | 10/10 | 4874 days | 1% |
| Tanja Rudolf | 10/10 | 4876 days | 1% |
| Peter Adams | 9/10 | 5157 days | 1% |
| Martin Guillaume | 10/10 | 5159 days | 1% |
| Jeroen Bartos | 9/10 | 5176 days | 1% |
| Jon Winter | 9/10 | 5178 days | 1% |
| Roeland Driessen | 10/10 | 5223 days | 1% |
| Rachel_Flowers | 10/10 | 5254 days | 1% |
| Sid | 10/10 | 5284 days | 1% |
| Alibeare | 10/10 | 5315 days | 1% |
| Susannah Eduart | 10/10 | 5509 days | 1% |
| Ann-Katrine & Sille | 10/10 | 5527 days | 1% |
| Josef & Christine Evers | 9/10 | 5538 days | 1% |
| Petersen | 10/10 | 5550 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 10/10 | 5552 days | 1% |
| Helen T | 10/10 | 5863 days | 1% |
| Bob Lenihan | 10/10 | 5880 days | 1% |
| Radek Hoferek | 9/10 | 5918 days | 1% |
| Pam K | 10/10 | 5921 days | 1% |
| Sabine Locker | 10/10 | 5938 days | 1% |
| csziegler | 10/10 | 5968 days | 1% |
| Rankers Rocks | 10/10 | 5984 days | 1% |
| Tait Suridge | 8/10 | 5995 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 9/10 | 6230 days | 1% |
| Barry Treve | 9/10 | 6235 days | 1% |
| AnjaChrist | 10/10 | 6246 days | 1% |
| qofd | 10/10 | 6929 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.