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
96.47%
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 | 294 days | 100% |
| Nick | 9/10 | 2910 days | 3% |
| Mike Dw | 10/10 | 2967 days | 3% |
| Nicole Kasischke | 10/10 | 2973 days | 3% |
| Heather Flanders | 8/10 | 3192 days | 2% |
| Melanie and Pascal | 8/10 | 3219 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Johanna | 9/10 | 3228 days | 2% |
| Tereza Bulova | 9/10 | 3247 days | 2% |
| Bernd Giermann | 8/10 | 3266 days | 2% |
| Magdalena | 7/10 | 3291 days | 2% |
| Kayla | 10/10 | 3310 days | 2% |
| Sean | 10/10 | 3310 days | 2% |
| Louis Nilsson | 10/10 | 3312 days | 2% |
| Lene Nilsson | 10/10 | 3312 days | 2% |
| Janina | 10/10 | 3317 days | 2% |
| Evelyn Rloeh | 7/10 | 3318 days | 2% |
| Gio Zy | 8/10 | 3321 days | 2% |
| Kirsty Smith | 10/10 | 3337 days | 2% |
| Huon | 8/10 | 3554 days | 2% |
| Ana Coulee | 9/10 | 3555 days | 2% |
| Cecile Santiaux | 10/10 | 3555 days | 2% |
| Molly Bogeberg | 9/10 | 3560 days | 2% |
| Jenna Kuittinen | 8/10 | 3561 days | 2% |
| Ben Keiser | 10/10 | 3562 days | 2% |
| Tom Teuber | 10/10 | 3564 days | 2% |
| Anika Danits | 10/10 | 3564 days | 2% |
| Valerie Bernardini | 10/10 | 3570 days | 2% |
| Dan Ramsl | 10/10 | 3575 days | 2% |
| Lauren Dinnage | 10/10 | 3581 days | 2% |
| Patrick Thumeyer | 10/10 | 3581 days | 2% |
| Max | 10/10 | 3582 days | 2% |
| John and Jan | 9/10 | 3583 days | 2% |
| Volker Stroenisch | 10/10 | 3587 days | 2% |
| Josh Symons | 10/10 | 3588 days | 2% |
| Emily Garside | 10/10 | 3589 days | 2% |
| Chandra Macraigne | 7/10 | 3589 days | 1% |
| Horitz | 10/10 | 3594 days | 2% |
| Dani | 10/10 | 3594 days | 2% |
| Lee Sandberg | 8/10 | 3599 days | 2% |
| Tina Rust | 10/10 | 3600 days | 2% |
| William Lendway | 9/10 | 3601 days | 2% |
| Sophie Kalnymsky | 10/10 | 3602 days | 2% |
| Xavier Bistodeau | 10/10 | 3606 days | 2% |
| Quinn McCusker | 10/10 | 3610 days | 2% |
| Maria and Grace | 6/10 | 3612 days | 1% |
| Maria Brauherr | 10/10 | 3613 days | 2% |
| Veronique Kaplan | 10/10 | 3614 days | 2% |
| Christine Schtenker | 10/10 | 3617 days | 2% |
| Kristyna Mokrackoua | 9/10 | 3619 days | 2% |
| Florian Mueller | 10/10 | 3621 days | 2% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3621 days | 2% |
| Iris Kerbler | 10/10 | 3625 days | 2% |
| Livia and Dave | 10/10 | 3627 days | 2% |
| Elisabeth Grabner | 7/10 | 3628 days | 1% |
| Christian Reimund | 9/10 | 3630 days | 2% |
| Stefanie Giese | 10/10 | 3630 days | 2% |
| Kim and Leon | 10/10 | 3634 days | 2% |
| Matthew Hallowell | 10/10 | 3638 days | 2% |
| Justin Kechanski | 8/10 | 3656 days | 1% |
| Steffen and Johannes | 9/10 | 3660 days | 1% |
| Ixtaso Roncal | 10/10 | 3705 days | 1% |
| Naelan Le Borgue | 10/10 | 3937 days | 1% |
| Oliver Pester | 10/10 | 3947 days | 1% |
| Kristina M | 10/10 | 3975 days | 1% |
| Bes | 10/10 | 3980 days | 1% |
| Inge van Noorf | 10/10 | 4034 days | 1% |
| FlyingKiwiGirl | 10/10 | 4128 days | 1% |
| Caroline Jonsson | 10/10 | 4280 days | 0% |
| Jonny Ronnblom | 10/10 | 4280 days | 0% |
| Martin Buchta | 9/10 | 4312 days | 0% |
| Anne Haenchen | 9/10 | 4312 days | 0% |
| Markus | 10/10 | 4323 days | 0% |
| Cornelia Witte | 10/10 | 4323 days | 0% |
| Sarah | 10/10 | 4336 days | 0% |
| Mike Majnik | 10/10 | 4336 days | 0% |
| Pioter Jurkowski | 10/10 | 4371 days | 0% |
| Patrick | 8/10 | 4371 days | 0% |
| Emma | 7/10 | 4371 days | 0% |
| Christin Woelk | 10/10 | 4641 days | 1% |
| Patrick Stoeit | 10/10 | 4651 days | 1% |
| Pete Wilson | 10/10 | 4663 days | 1% |
| Yu-Ti Chu | 9/10 | 4668 days | 1% |
| Alice Berg | 10/10 | 4670 days | 1% |
| Camille Coombes | 9/10 | 4670 days | 1% |
| Jan | 10/10 | 4677 days | 1% |
| Frederic Birke | 10/10 | 4679 days | 1% |
| Glenn Surzur | 8/10 | 4679 days | 1% |
| Caderet | 10/10 | 4679 days | 1% |
| Jan & Jile | 10/10 | 4682 days | 1% |
| Lars Schulz | 10/10 | 4692 days | 1% |
| N smith | 10/10 | 4736 days | 1% |
| Michael Kretzschmar | 10/10 | 4753 days | 1% |
| Tanja Rudolf | 10/10 | 4755 days | 1% |
| Peter Adams | 9/10 | 5036 days | 1% |
| Martin Guillaume | 10/10 | 5038 days | 1% |
| Jeroen Bartos | 9/10 | 5055 days | 1% |
| Jon Winter | 9/10 | 5057 days | 1% |
| Roeland Driessen | 10/10 | 5102 days | 1% |
| Rachel_Flowers | 10/10 | 5133 days | 1% |
| Sid | 10/10 | 5163 days | 1% |
| Alibeare | 10/10 | 5194 days | 1% |
| Susannah Eduart | 10/10 | 5388 days | 1% |
| Ann-Katrine & Sille | 10/10 | 5406 days | 1% |
| Josef & Christine Evers | 9/10 | 5417 days | 1% |
| Petersen | 10/10 | 5429 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 10/10 | 5431 days | 1% |
| Helen T | 10/10 | 5742 days | 1% |
| Bob Lenihan | 10/10 | 5759 days | 1% |
| Radek Hoferek | 9/10 | 5797 days | 1% |
| Pam K | 10/10 | 5800 days | 1% |
| Sabine Locker | 10/10 | 5817 days | 1% |
| csziegler | 10/10 | 5847 days | 1% |
| Rankers Rocks | 10/10 | 5863 days | 1% |
| Tait Suridge | 8/10 | 5874 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 9/10 | 6109 days | 1% |
| Barry Treve | 9/10 | 6114 days | 1% |
| AnjaChrist | 10/10 | 6125 days | 1% |
| qofd | 10/10 | 6808 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.