Ranking Score Explained
Hi there, 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 Wellington Botanic Gardens.
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.
Nick Morrison
Rankers owner
Wellington Botanic Gardens
Valid Reviews
70 Valid Reviews
The Wellington Botanic Gardens experience has a total of 70 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 70 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 16 |
|
23% |
| 9/10 | 23 |
|
33% |
| 8/10 | 20 |
|
29% |
| 7/10 | 10 |
|
14% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
86.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wellington Botanic Gardens valid reviews is 86.00% and is based on 70 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
61 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 70 valid reviews, the experience has 61 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 61 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 13 |
|
21% |
| 9/10 | 21 |
|
34% |
| 8/10 | 18 |
|
30% |
| 7/10 | 8 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
85.90% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wellington Botanic Gardens face-to-face reviews is 85.90% and is based on 61 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
89.89%
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 | Face-to-Face | Weight | Relative Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Fricker | 10/10 | 143 days | 96.76 | 100% | |
| Helna Saumanova | 10/10 | 771 days |  |
25.96 | 25% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 819 days | |
20.49 | 20% |
| Sabrina and Hannes | 9/10 | 838 days | |
18.56 | 18% |
| Selma Franke | 9/10 | 842 days | |
18.17 | 17% |
| Su Jung Han | 10/10 | 1062 days | |
6.21 | 5% |
| Fanny | 9/10 | 1063 days | |
6.19 | 5% |
| Hector Sharp | 7/10 | 1063 days | |
6.19 | 5% |
| Andre | 10/10 | 1079 days | |
6.05 | 4% |
| Sybille | 10/10 | 1079 days | |
6.05 | 4% |
| Marine | 8/10 | 1080 days | |
6.04 | 4% |
| Paul Gaylon | 10/10 | 1083 days | |
6.03 | 4% |
| Eberhard | 8/10 | 1084 days | |
6.02 | 4% |
| Adam Pulkrabek | 8/10 | 1091 days | |
6.0 | 4% |
| Olga Barathova | 9/10 | 1091 days | |
6.0 | 4% |
| Melissa Fuster | 7/10 | 1128 days | |
5.95 | 4% |
| renee verwey | 9/10 | 1135 days | 4.95 | 3% | |
| Lea | 8/10 | 1175 days | |
5.87 | 4% |
| Bob Fontaine | 7/10 | 1261 days | 4.77 | 3% | |
| Melvin Spear | 9/10 | 1466 days | 4.49 | 3% | |
| Manuela Opprecht | 10/10 | 1492 days | 4.46 | 3% | |
| Sam Bruylant | 9/10 | 1803 days | |
4.84 | 3% |
| Vera Kreipe | 8/10 | 1823 days | |
4.8 | 3% |
| Jennifer Garner | 10/10 | 1831 days | |
4.79 | 3% |
| Dana | 10/10 | 1836 days | |
4.78 | 3% |
| Frederic Gazzarin | 9/10 | 1842 days | |
4.77 | 3% |
| Patricia Gazzarin | 10/10 | 1842 days | |
4.77 | 3% |
| Ruth Watkin | 9/10 | 1842 days | |
4.77 | 3% |
| GN100 | 8/10 | 1844 days | |
4.77 | 3% |
| Julia Bonisch | 7/10 | 1861 days | |
4.74 | 3% |
| Verena | 9/10 | 2174 days | |
4.23 | 3% |
| Hans | 9/10 | 2263 days | |
4.08 | 2% |
| Anne and John | 9/10 | 2272 days | |
4.07 | 2% |
| Jen Sweeting | 8/10 | 2535 days | |
3.63 | 2% |
| Duncan Mallison | 7/10 | 2554 days | |
3.6 | 2% |
| Richard Sutherland | 5/10 | 2557 days | |
3.6 | 2% |
| Graham Platt | 8/10 | 2557 days | |
3.6 | 2% |
| R E Webb | 9/10 | 2560 days | |
3.59 | 2% |
| Diana Allan | 9/10 | 2564 days | |
3.59 | 2% |
| Lepied | 8/10 | 2564 days | |
3.59 | 2% |
| Graham Swinyard | 7/10 | 2571 days | |
3.57 | 2% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 2608 days | 2.93 | 1% | |
| scampr | 8/10 | 2608 days | 2.93 | 1% | |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 2639 days | 2.88 | 1% | |
| Steve Eley | 9/10 | 2648 days | |
3.45 | 2% |
| Willem & Lilian | 8/10 | 2648 days | |
3.45 | 2% |
| Curry | 10/10 | 2651 days | |
3.44 | 2% |
| Herman Plasman | 8/10 | 2654 days | |
3.44 | 2% |
| R & M Willows | 10/10 | 2656 days | |
3.43 | 2% |
| Elke & Charlotte | 7/10 | 2659 days | |
3.43 | 2% |
| Malcolm Jones | 8/10 | 2907 days | |
3.02 | 1% |
| Kimberly St Louis | 10/10 | 2928 days | |
2.99 | 1% |
| Claire Hoyland | 8/10 | 2929 days | |
2.99 | 1% |
| Cara Dungay | 7/10 | 2930 days | |
2.98 | 1% |
| John Allen | 9/10 | 2937 days | |
2.97 | 1% |
| Tanner | 10/10 | 2937 days | |
2.97 | 1% |
| John Simpson | 8/10 | 2939 days | |
2.97 | 1% |
| Nicole | 10/10 | 3034 days | 2.34 | 1% | |
| Haupt | 9/10 | 3269 days | |
2.43 | 1% |
| Herrmann | 9/10 | 3282 days | |
2.4 | 1% |
| Susan & Richard | 10/10 | 3282 days | |
2.4 | 1% |
| Henrik Plichta | 8/10 | 3288 days | |
2.4 | 1% |
| Jess Laver | 9/10 | 3292 days | |
2.39 | 1% |
| Robb Howland | 9/10 | 3303 days | |
2.37 | 1% |
| Bram-Jan M | 8/10 | 3306 days | |
2.37 | 1% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 3306 days | |
2.37 | 1% |
| Nigel Armstrong | 9/10 | 3318 days | |
2.35 | 1% |
| Ulyate | 7/10 | 3380 days | |
2.24 | 0% |
| Kaye | 8/10 | 3613 days | |
1.86 | 0% |
| Christian Troendle | 9/10 | 3619 days | |
1.85 | 0% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Wellington Botanic Gardens does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Final Ranking Score
90%
The final ranking score once rounding has been applied. This value is cached and recalculated each day. Therefore it may not be precisely accurate based on the other values presented.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at info@rankers.co.nz.