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 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.
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
86.71%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Fricker | 10/10 | 2920 days | 100% |
| Helna Saumanova | 10/10 | 3548 days | 53% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 3596 days | 49% |
| Sabrina and Hannes | 9/10 | 3615 days | 48% |
| Selma Franke | 9/10 | 3619 days | 48% |
| Su Jung Han | 10/10 | 3839 days | 32% |
| Fanny | 9/10 | 3840 days | 31% |
| Hector Sharp | 7/10 | 3840 days | 29% |
| Andre | 10/10 | 3856 days | 31% |
| Sybille | 10/10 | 3856 days | 31% |
| Marine | 8/10 | 3857 days | 30% |
| Paul Gaylon | 10/10 | 3860 days | 30% |
| Eberhard | 8/10 | 3861 days | 29% |
| Adam Pulkrabek | 8/10 | 3868 days | 29% |
| Olga Barathova | 9/10 | 3868 days | 29% |
| Melissa Fuster | 7/10 | 3905 days | 25% |
| renee verwey | 9/10 | 3912 days | 26% |
| Lea | 8/10 | 3952 days | 23% |
| Bob Fontaine | 7/10 | 4038 days | 15% |
| Melvin Spear | 9/10 | 4243 days | 2% |
| Manuela Opprecht | 10/10 | 4269 days | 0% |
| Sam Bruylant | 9/10 | 4580 days | 29% |
| Vera Kreipe | 8/10 | 4600 days | 29% |
| Jennifer Garner | 10/10 | 4608 days | 30% |
| Dana | 10/10 | 4613 days | 30% |
| Frederic Gazzarin | 9/10 | 4619 days | 29% |
| Patricia Gazzarin | 10/10 | 4619 days | 30% |
| Ruth Watkin | 9/10 | 4619 days | 29% |
| GN100 | 8/10 | 4621 days | 29% |
| Julia Bonisch | 7/10 | 4638 days | 27% |
| Verena | 9/10 | 4951 days | 29% |
| Hans | 9/10 | 5040 days | 29% |
| Anne and John | 9/10 | 5049 days | 29% |
| Jen Sweeting | 8/10 | 5312 days | 29% |
| Duncan Mallison | 7/10 | 5331 days | 27% |
| Richard Sutherland | 5/10 | 5334 days | 21% |
| Graham Platt | 8/10 | 5334 days | 29% |
| R E Webb | 9/10 | 5337 days | 29% |
| Diana Allan | 9/10 | 5341 days | 29% |
| Lepied | 8/10 | 5341 days | 29% |
| Graham Swinyard | 7/10 | 5348 days | 27% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5385 days | 29% |
| scampr | 8/10 | 5385 days | 29% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5416 days | 27% |
| Steve Eley | 9/10 | 5425 days | 29% |
| Willem & Lilian | 8/10 | 5425 days | 29% |
| Curry | 10/10 | 5428 days | 30% |
| Herman Plasman | 8/10 | 5431 days | 29% |
| R & M Willows | 10/10 | 5433 days | 30% |
| Elke & Charlotte | 7/10 | 5436 days | 27% |
| Malcolm Jones | 8/10 | 5684 days | 29% |
| Kimberly St Louis | 10/10 | 5705 days | 30% |
| Claire Hoyland | 8/10 | 5706 days | 29% |
| Cara Dungay | 7/10 | 5707 days | 27% |
| John Allen | 9/10 | 5714 days | 29% |
| Tanner | 10/10 | 5714 days | 30% |
| John Simpson | 8/10 | 5716 days | 29% |
| Nicole | 10/10 | 5811 days | 30% |
| Haupt | 9/10 | 6046 days | 29% |
| Herrmann | 9/10 | 6059 days | 29% |
| Susan & Richard | 10/10 | 6059 days | 30% |
| Henrik Plichta | 8/10 | 6065 days | 29% |
| Jess Laver | 9/10 | 6069 days | 29% |
| Robb Howland | 9/10 | 6080 days | 29% |
| Bram-Jan M | 8/10 | 6083 days | 29% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 6083 days | 29% |
| Nigel Armstrong | 9/10 | 6095 days | 29% |
| Ulyate | 7/10 | 6157 days | 27% |
| Kaye | 8/10 | 6390 days | 29% |
| Christian Troendle | 9/10 | 6396 days | 29% |
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.
Balancing Adjustment
1.51% 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
88%
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.