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.
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
89.70%
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 | 294 days | 86.3 | 100% | |
| Helna Saumanova | 10/10 | 922 days |  |
11.69 | 12% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 970 days | |
8.97 | 9% |
| Sabrina and Hannes | 9/10 | 989 days | |
8.14 | 8% |
| Selma Franke | 9/10 | 993 days | |
7.98 | 8% |
| Su Jung Han | 10/10 | 1213 days | |
5.81 | 5% |
| Fanny | 9/10 | 1214 days | |
5.8 | 5% |
| Hector Sharp | 7/10 | 1214 days | |
5.8 | 5% |
| Andre | 10/10 | 1230 days | |
5.78 | 5% |
| Sybille | 10/10 | 1230 days | |
5.78 | 5% |
| Marine | 8/10 | 1231 days | |
5.78 | 5% |
| Paul Gaylon | 10/10 | 1234 days | |
5.77 | 5% |
| Eberhard | 8/10 | 1235 days | |
5.77 | 5% |
| Adam Pulkrabek | 8/10 | 1242 days | |
5.76 | 5% |
| Olga Barathova | 9/10 | 1242 days | |
5.76 | 5% |
| Melissa Fuster | 7/10 | 1279 days | |
5.7 | 5% |
| renee verwey | 9/10 | 1286 days | 4.74 | 4% | |
| Lea | 8/10 | 1326 days | |
5.62 | 5% |
| Bob Fontaine | 7/10 | 1412 days | 4.57 | 3% | |
| Melvin Spear | 9/10 | 1617 days | 4.28 | 3% | |
| Manuela Opprecht | 10/10 | 1643 days | 4.25 | 3% | |
| Sam Bruylant | 9/10 | 1954 days | |
4.59 | 4% |
| Vera Kreipe | 8/10 | 1974 days | |
4.56 | 3% |
| Jennifer Garner | 10/10 | 1982 days | |
4.54 | 3% |
| Dana | 10/10 | 1987 days | |
4.53 | 3% |
| Frederic Gazzarin | 9/10 | 1993 days | |
4.52 | 3% |
| Patricia Gazzarin | 10/10 | 1993 days | |
4.52 | 3% |
| Ruth Watkin | 9/10 | 1993 days | |
4.52 | 3% |
| GN100 | 8/10 | 1995 days | |
4.52 | 3% |
| Julia Bonisch | 7/10 | 2012 days | |
4.49 | 3% |
| Verena | 9/10 | 2325 days | |
3.98 | 3% |
| Hans | 9/10 | 2414 days | |
3.83 | 3% |
| Anne and John | 9/10 | 2423 days | |
3.82 | 3% |
| Jen Sweeting | 8/10 | 2686 days | |
3.38 | 2% |
| Duncan Mallison | 7/10 | 2705 days | |
3.35 | 2% |
| Richard Sutherland | 5/10 | 2708 days | |
3.35 | 2% |
| Graham Platt | 8/10 | 2708 days | |
3.35 | 2% |
| R E Webb | 9/10 | 2711 days | |
3.34 | 2% |
| Diana Allan | 9/10 | 2715 days | |
3.34 | 2% |
| Lepied | 8/10 | 2715 days | |
3.34 | 2% |
| Graham Swinyard | 7/10 | 2722 days | |
3.33 | 2% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 2759 days | 2.72 | 1% | |
| scampr | 8/10 | 2759 days | 2.72 | 1% | |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 2790 days | 2.68 | 1% | |
| Steve Eley | 9/10 | 2799 days | |
3.2 | 2% |
| Willem & Lilian | 8/10 | 2799 days | |
3.2 | 2% |
| Curry | 10/10 | 2802 days | |
3.19 | 2% |
| Herman Plasman | 8/10 | 2805 days | |
3.19 | 2% |
| R & M Willows | 10/10 | 2807 days | |
3.19 | 2% |
| Elke & Charlotte | 7/10 | 2810 days | |
3.18 | 2% |
| Malcolm Jones | 8/10 | 3058 days | |
2.77 | 1% |
| Kimberly St Louis | 10/10 | 3079 days | |
2.74 | 1% |
| Claire Hoyland | 8/10 | 3080 days | |
2.74 | 1% |
| Cara Dungay | 7/10 | 3081 days | |
2.74 | 1% |
| John Allen | 9/10 | 3088 days | |
2.72 | 1% |
| Tanner | 10/10 | 3088 days | |
2.72 | 1% |
| John Simpson | 8/10 | 3090 days | |
2.72 | 1% |
| Nicole | 10/10 | 3185 days | 2.14 | 1% | |
| Haupt | 9/10 | 3420 days | |
2.18 | 1% |
| Herrmann | 9/10 | 3433 days | |
2.16 | 1% |
| Susan & Richard | 10/10 | 3433 days | |
2.16 | 1% |
| Henrik Plichta | 8/10 | 3439 days | |
2.15 | 1% |
| Jess Laver | 9/10 | 3443 days | |
2.14 | 1% |
| Robb Howland | 9/10 | 3454 days | |
2.12 | 1% |
| Bram-Jan M | 8/10 | 3457 days | |
2.12 | 1% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 3457 days | |
2.12 | 1% |
| Nigel Armstrong | 9/10 | 3469 days | |
2.1 | 1% |
| Ulyate | 7/10 | 3531 days | |
2.0 | 0% |
| Kaye | 8/10 | 3764 days | |
1.61 | 0% |
| Christian Troendle | 9/10 | 3770 days | |
1.6 | 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.