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
90.64%
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 | 547 days | 52.59 | 100% | |
| Helna Saumanova | 10/10 | 1175 days |  |
4.84 | 9% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 1223 days | |
4.51 | 9% |
| Sabrina and Hannes | 9/10 | 1242 days | |
4.71 | 9% |
| Selma Franke | 9/10 | 1246 days | |
4.7 | 9% |
| Su Jung Han | 10/10 | 1466 days | |
4.27 | 8% |
| Fanny | 9/10 | 1467 days | |
4.27 | 8% |
| Hector Sharp | 7/10 | 1467 days | |
3.89 | 7% |
| Andre | 10/10 | 1483 days | |
4.24 | 8% |
| Sybille | 10/10 | 1483 days | |
4.24 | 8% |
| Marine | 8/10 | 1484 days | |
4.03 | 8% |
| Paul Gaylon | 10/10 | 1487 days | |
4.23 | 8% |
| Eberhard | 8/10 | 1488 days | |
4.02 | 8% |
| Adam Pulkrabek | 8/10 | 1495 days | |
4.01 | 8% |
| Olga Barathova | 9/10 | 1495 days | |
4.22 | 8% |
| Melissa Fuster | 7/10 | 1532 days | |
3.77 | 7% |
| renee verwey | 9/10 | 1539 days | 4.13 | 8% | |
| Lea | 8/10 | 1579 days | |
3.85 | 7% |
| Bob Fontaine | 7/10 | 1665 days | 3.53 | 7% | |
| Melvin Spear | 9/10 | 1870 days | 3.48 | 7% | |
| Manuela Opprecht | 10/10 | 1896 days | 3.43 | 7% | |
| Sam Bruylant | 9/10 | 2207 days | |
2.82 | 5% |
| Vera Kreipe | 8/10 | 2227 days | |
2.65 | 5% |
| Jennifer Garner | 10/10 | 2235 days | |
2.77 | 5% |
| Dana | 10/10 | 2240 days | |
2.76 | 5% |
| Frederic Gazzarin | 9/10 | 2246 days | |
2.75 | 5% |
| Patricia Gazzarin | 10/10 | 2246 days | |
2.75 | 5% |
| Ruth Watkin | 9/10 | 2246 days | |
2.75 | 5% |
| GN100 | 8/10 | 2248 days | |
2.61 | 5% |
| Julia Bonisch | 7/10 | 2265 days | |
2.47 | 5% |
| Verena | 9/10 | 2578 days | |
2.1 | 4% |
| Hans | 9/10 | 2667 days | |
1.92 | 4% |
| Anne and John | 9/10 | 2676 days | |
1.91 | 4% |
| Jen Sweeting | 8/10 | 2939 days | |
1.32 | 3% |
| Duncan Mallison | 7/10 | 2958 days | |
1.23 | 2% |
| Richard Sutherland | 5/10 | 2961 days | |
1.09 | 2% |
| Graham Platt | 8/10 | 2961 days | |
1.28 | 2% |
| R E Webb | 9/10 | 2964 days | |
1.34 | 3% |
| Diana Allan | 9/10 | 2968 days | |
1.33 | 3% |
| Lepied | 8/10 | 2968 days | |
1.27 | 2% |
| Graham Swinyard | 7/10 | 2975 days | |
1.2 | 2% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 3012 days | 1.19 | 2% | |
| scampr | 8/10 | 3012 days | 1.19 | 2% | |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 3043 days | 1.08 | 2% | |
| Steve Eley | 9/10 | 3052 days | |
1.17 | 2% |
| Willem & Lilian | 8/10 | 3052 days | |
1.11 | 2% |
| Curry | 10/10 | 3055 days | |
1.16 | 2% |
| Herman Plasman | 8/10 | 3058 days | |
1.1 | 2% |
| R & M Willows | 10/10 | 3060 days | |
1.15 | 2% |
| Elke & Charlotte | 7/10 | 3063 days | |
1.05 | 2% |
| Malcolm Jones | 8/10 | 3311 days | |
0.63 | 1% |
| Kimberly St Louis | 10/10 | 3332 days | |
0.62 | 1% |
| Claire Hoyland | 8/10 | 3333 days | |
0.59 | 1% |
| Cara Dungay | 7/10 | 3334 days | |
0.56 | 1% |
| John Allen | 9/10 | 3341 days | |
0.6 | 1% |
| Tanner | 10/10 | 3341 days | |
0.6 | 1% |
| John Simpson | 8/10 | 3343 days | |
0.57 | 1% |
| Nicole | 10/10 | 3438 days | 0.41 | 1% | |
| Haupt | 9/10 | 3673 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Herrmann | 9/10 | 3686 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Susan & Richard | 10/10 | 3686 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Henrik Plichta | 8/10 | 3692 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Jess Laver | 9/10 | 3696 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Robb Howland | 9/10 | 3707 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Bram-Jan M | 8/10 | 3710 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 3710 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Nigel Armstrong | 9/10 | 3722 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Ulyate | 7/10 | 3784 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Kaye | 8/10 | 4017 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Christian Troendle | 9/10 | 4023 days | |
0.0 | 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
91%
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.