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
96.39%
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 | 375 days | 100% |
| Nick | 9/10 | 2991 days | 3% |
| Mike Dw | 10/10 | 3048 days | 3% |
| Nicole Kasischke | 10/10 | 3054 days | 3% |
| Heather Flanders | 8/10 | 3273 days | 2% |
| Melanie and Pascal | 8/10 | 3300 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Johanna | 9/10 | 3309 days | 2% |
| Tereza Bulova | 9/10 | 3328 days | 2% |
| Bernd Giermann | 8/10 | 3347 days | 2% |
| Magdalena | 7/10 | 3372 days | 2% |
| Kayla | 10/10 | 3391 days | 2% |
| Sean | 10/10 | 3391 days | 2% |
| Louis Nilsson | 10/10 | 3393 days | 2% |
| Lene Nilsson | 10/10 | 3393 days | 2% |
| Janina | 10/10 | 3398 days | 2% |
| Evelyn Rloeh | 7/10 | 3399 days | 2% |
| Gio Zy | 8/10 | 3402 days | 2% |
| Kirsty Smith | 10/10 | 3418 days | 2% |
| Huon | 8/10 | 3635 days | 2% |
| Ana Coulee | 9/10 | 3636 days | 2% |
| Cecile Santiaux | 10/10 | 3636 days | 2% |
| Molly Bogeberg | 9/10 | 3641 days | 2% |
| Jenna Kuittinen | 8/10 | 3642 days | 1% |
| Ben Keiser | 10/10 | 3643 days | 2% |
| Tom Teuber | 10/10 | 3645 days | 2% |
| Anika Danits | 10/10 | 3645 days | 2% |
| Valerie Bernardini | 10/10 | 3651 days | 2% |
| Dan Ramsl | 10/10 | 3656 days | 2% |
| Lauren Dinnage | 10/10 | 3662 days | 1% |
| Patrick Thumeyer | 10/10 | 3662 days | 1% |
| Max | 10/10 | 3663 days | 1% |
| John and Jan | 9/10 | 3664 days | 1% |
| Volker Stroenisch | 10/10 | 3668 days | 1% |
| Josh Symons | 10/10 | 3669 days | 1% |
| Emily Garside | 10/10 | 3670 days | 1% |
| Chandra Macraigne | 7/10 | 3670 days | 1% |
| Horitz | 10/10 | 3675 days | 1% |
| Dani | 10/10 | 3675 days | 1% |
| Lee Sandberg | 8/10 | 3680 days | 1% |
| Tina Rust | 10/10 | 3681 days | 1% |
| William Lendway | 9/10 | 3682 days | 1% |
| Sophie Kalnymsky | 10/10 | 3683 days | 1% |
| Xavier Bistodeau | 10/10 | 3687 days | 1% |
| Quinn McCusker | 10/10 | 3691 days | 1% |
| Maria and Grace | 6/10 | 3693 days | 1% |
| Maria Brauherr | 10/10 | 3694 days | 1% |
| Veronique Kaplan | 10/10 | 3695 days | 1% |
| Christine Schtenker | 10/10 | 3698 days | 1% |
| Kristyna Mokrackoua | 9/10 | 3700 days | 1% |
| Florian Mueller | 10/10 | 3702 days | 1% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3702 days | 1% |
| Iris Kerbler | 10/10 | 3706 days | 1% |
| Livia and Dave | 10/10 | 3708 days | 1% |
| Elisabeth Grabner | 7/10 | 3709 days | 1% |
| Christian Reimund | 9/10 | 3711 days | 1% |
| Stefanie Giese | 10/10 | 3711 days | 1% |
| Kim and Leon | 10/10 | 3715 days | 1% |
| Matthew Hallowell | 10/10 | 3719 days | 1% |
| Justin Kechanski | 8/10 | 3737 days | 1% |
| Steffen and Johannes | 9/10 | 3741 days | 1% |
| Ixtaso Roncal | 10/10 | 3786 days | 1% |
| Naelan Le Borgue | 10/10 | 4018 days | 1% |
| Oliver Pester | 10/10 | 4027 days | 1% |
| Kristina M | 10/10 | 4055 days | 1% |
| Bes | 10/10 | 4061 days | 1% |
| Inge van Noorf | 10/10 | 4115 days | 1% |
| FlyingKiwiGirl | 10/10 | 4208 days | 0% |
| Caroline Jonsson | 10/10 | 4361 days | 0% |
| Jonny Ronnblom | 10/10 | 4361 days | 0% |
| Martin Buchta | 9/10 | 4393 days | 1% |
| Anne Haenchen | 9/10 | 4393 days | 1% |
| Markus | 10/10 | 4404 days | 1% |
| Cornelia Witte | 10/10 | 4404 days | 1% |
| Sarah | 10/10 | 4417 days | 1% |
| Mike Majnik | 10/10 | 4417 days | 1% |
| Pioter Jurkowski | 10/10 | 4452 days | 1% |
| Patrick | 8/10 | 4452 days | 1% |
| Emma | 7/10 | 4452 days | 1% |
| Christin Woelk | 10/10 | 4722 days | 1% |
| Patrick Stoeit | 10/10 | 4732 days | 1% |
| Pete Wilson | 10/10 | 4744 days | 1% |
| Yu-Ti Chu | 9/10 | 4749 days | 1% |
| Alice Berg | 10/10 | 4751 days | 1% |
| Camille Coombes | 9/10 | 4751 days | 1% |
| Jan | 10/10 | 4758 days | 1% |
| Frederic Birke | 10/10 | 4760 days | 1% |
| Glenn Surzur | 8/10 | 4760 days | 1% |
| Caderet | 10/10 | 4760 days | 1% |
| Jan & Jile | 10/10 | 4763 days | 1% |
| Lars Schulz | 10/10 | 4773 days | 1% |
| N smith | 10/10 | 4817 days | 1% |
| Michael Kretzschmar | 10/10 | 4834 days | 1% |
| Tanja Rudolf | 10/10 | 4836 days | 1% |
| Peter Adams | 9/10 | 5117 days | 1% |
| Martin Guillaume | 10/10 | 5119 days | 1% |
| Jeroen Bartos | 9/10 | 5136 days | 1% |
| Jon Winter | 9/10 | 5138 days | 1% |
| Roeland Driessen | 10/10 | 5183 days | 1% |
| Rachel_Flowers | 10/10 | 5214 days | 1% |
| Sid | 10/10 | 5244 days | 1% |
| Alibeare | 10/10 | 5275 days | 1% |
| Susannah Eduart | 10/10 | 5469 days | 1% |
| Ann-Katrine & Sille | 10/10 | 5487 days | 1% |
| Josef & Christine Evers | 9/10 | 5498 days | 1% |
| Petersen | 10/10 | 5510 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 10/10 | 5512 days | 1% |
| Helen T | 10/10 | 5823 days | 1% |
| Bob Lenihan | 10/10 | 5840 days | 1% |
| Radek Hoferek | 9/10 | 5878 days | 1% |
| Pam K | 10/10 | 5881 days | 1% |
| Sabine Locker | 10/10 | 5898 days | 1% |
| csziegler | 10/10 | 5928 days | 1% |
| Rankers Rocks | 10/10 | 5944 days | 1% |
| Tait Suridge | 8/10 | 5955 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 9/10 | 6190 days | 1% |
| Barry Treve | 9/10 | 6195 days | 1% |
| AnjaChrist | 10/10 | 6206 days | 1% |
| qofd | 10/10 | 6889 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
0.31% 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.