G'day, 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
86.86%
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 | 2739 days | 100% |
| Helna Saumanova | 10/10 | 3367 days | 53% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 3415 days | 48% |
| Sabrina and Hannes | 9/10 | 3434 days | 48% |
| Selma Franke | 9/10 | 3438 days | 47% |
| Su Jung Han | 10/10 | 3658 days | 32% |
| Fanny | 9/10 | 3659 days | 31% |
| Hector Sharp | 7/10 | 3659 days | 28% |
| Andre | 10/10 | 3675 days | 31% |
| Sybille | 10/10 | 3675 days | 31% |
| Marine | 8/10 | 3676 days | 30% |
| Paul Gaylon | 10/10 | 3679 days | 30% |
| Eberhard | 8/10 | 3680 days | 29% |
| Adam Pulkrabek | 8/10 | 3687 days | 29% |
| Olga Barathova | 9/10 | 3687 days | 29% |
| Melissa Fuster | 7/10 | 3724 days | 24% |
| renee verwey | 9/10 | 3731 days | 26% |
| Lea | 8/10 | 3771 days | 23% |
| Bob Fontaine | 7/10 | 3857 days | 14% |
| Melvin Spear | 9/10 | 4062 days | 2% |
| Manuela Opprecht | 10/10 | 4088 days | 0% |
| Sam Bruylant | 9/10 | 4399 days | 16% |
| Vera Kreipe | 8/10 | 4419 days | 15% |
| Jennifer Garner | 10/10 | 4427 days | 16% |
| Dana | 10/10 | 4432 days | 16% |
| Frederic Gazzarin | 9/10 | 4438 days | 16% |
| Patricia Gazzarin | 10/10 | 4438 days | 16% |
| Ruth Watkin | 9/10 | 4438 days | 16% |
| GN100 | 8/10 | 4440 days | 15% |
| Julia Bonisch | 7/10 | 4457 days | 14% |
| Verena | 9/10 | 4770 days | 16% |
| Hans | 9/10 | 4859 days | 16% |
| Anne and John | 9/10 | 4868 days | 16% |
| Jen Sweeting | 8/10 | 5131 days | 15% |
| Duncan Mallison | 7/10 | 5150 days | 14% |
| Richard Sutherland | 5/10 | 5153 days | 7% |
| Graham Platt | 8/10 | 5153 days | 15% |
| R E Webb | 9/10 | 5156 days | 16% |
| Diana Allan | 9/10 | 5160 days | 16% |
| Lepied | 8/10 | 5160 days | 15% |
| Graham Swinyard | 7/10 | 5167 days | 14% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5204 days | 15% |
| scampr | 8/10 | 5204 days | 15% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5235 days | 14% |
| Steve Eley | 9/10 | 5244 days | 16% |
| Willem & Lilian | 8/10 | 5244 days | 15% |
| Curry | 10/10 | 5247 days | 16% |
| Herman Plasman | 8/10 | 5250 days | 15% |
| R & M Willows | 10/10 | 5252 days | 16% |
| Elke & Charlotte | 7/10 | 5255 days | 14% |
| Malcolm Jones | 8/10 | 5503 days | 15% |
| Kimberly St Louis | 10/10 | 5524 days | 16% |
| Claire Hoyland | 8/10 | 5525 days | 15% |
| Cara Dungay | 7/10 | 5526 days | 14% |
| John Allen | 9/10 | 5533 days | 16% |
| Tanner | 10/10 | 5533 days | 16% |
| John Simpson | 8/10 | 5535 days | 15% |
| Nicole | 10/10 | 5630 days | 16% |
| Haupt | 9/10 | 5865 days | 16% |
| Herrmann | 9/10 | 5878 days | 16% |
| Susan & Richard | 10/10 | 5878 days | 16% |
| Henrik Plichta | 8/10 | 5884 days | 15% |
| Jess Laver | 9/10 | 5888 days | 16% |
| Robb Howland | 9/10 | 5899 days | 16% |
| Bram-Jan M | 8/10 | 5902 days | 15% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 5902 days | 16% |
| Nigel Armstrong | 9/10 | 5914 days | 16% |
| Ulyate | 7/10 | 5976 days | 14% |
| Kaye | 8/10 | 6209 days | 15% |
| Christian Troendle | 9/10 | 6215 days | 16% |
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
1.48% 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.