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 Spa Park.
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.
Spa Park
Valid Reviews
90 Valid Reviews
The Spa Park experience has a total of 92 reviews. There are 90 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 2 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 90 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 36 |
|
40% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
29% |
| 8/10 | 16 |
|
18% |
| 7/10 | 10 |
|
11% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
89.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Spa Park valid reviews is 89.00% and is based on 90 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
81 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 90 valid reviews, the experience has 81 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 81 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 34 |
|
42% |
| 9/10 | 23 |
|
28% |
| 8/10 | 15 |
|
19% |
| 7/10 | 8 |
|
10% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
89.75% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Spa Park face-to-face reviews is 89.75% and is based on 81 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
77.13%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kate Forman | 5/10 | 384 days | 100% |
| Léo | 10/10 | 1146 days | 45% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 2880 days | 4% |
| Felix Koehler | 10/10 | 3385 days | 3% |
| Lucie Revay | 7/10 | 3407 days | 2% |
| Simon Schatz | 10/10 | 3677 days | 2% |
| Nadja Guiliani | 7/10 | 3682 days | 2% |
| Jamie Serieux | 8/10 | 3685 days | 2% |
| Philipp | 7/10 | 3691 days | 2% |
| George Bellwood | 9/10 | 3693 days | 2% |
| Sarah Dorsett | 8/10 | 3693 days | 2% |
| Lewis Cole | 8/10 | 3695 days | 2% |
| Robert Klub | 10/10 | 3714 days | 2% |
| Johannes Koch | 10/10 | 3716 days | 2% |
| Clara Loizeil | 7/10 | 3722 days | 2% |
| Patrick Veber | 8/10 | 3722 days | 2% |
| Fabian | 4/10 | 3726 days | 1% |
| Maartje | 9/10 | 3727 days | 2% |
| Anders Hauke | 9/10 | 3728 days | 2% |
| Alex Reeve | 10/10 | 3735 days | 2% |
| Eric Hertort | 10/10 | 3739 days | 2% |
| Christian Meyer | 10/10 | 3739 days | 2% |
| Melissa Fuster | 8/10 | 3743 days | 2% |
| Mikkel Palleson | 10/10 | 3743 days | 2% |
| Marek Dvonsky | 8/10 | 3744 days | 2% |
| Sam | 8/10 | 3750 days | 2% |
| Gregor | 10/10 | 3755 days | 2% |
| Shany Maydan | 10/10 | 3781 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Susanna | 9/10 | 3788 days | 1% |
| Jade Cownley | 9/10 | 4081 days | 1% |
| Pierre Planchez | 9/10 | 4100 days | 1% |
| Erik Hafuer | 9/10 | 4136 days | 1% |
| Polly Rider | 9/10 | 4162 days | 0% |
| Lea Darotchetche | 8/10 | 4323 days | 0% |
| Julia Schabenberger | 9/10 | 4401 days | 1% |
| Lola | 10/10 | 4401 days | 1% |
| Alisa | 9/10 | 4401 days | 1% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 4401 days | 1% |
| Cecilia Anderson | 9/10 | 4404 days | 1% |
| Mattias | 8/10 | 4404 days | 1% |
| Guillaume Yedoux | 8/10 | 4404 days | 1% |
| Zuzana Holubova | 8/10 | 4404 days | 1% |
| Jenny Finch | 9/10 | 4429 days | 1% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 10/10 | 4430 days | 1% |
| Florent Bouillon | 8/10 | 4430 days | 1% |
| Stephen Revah | 9/10 | 4430 days | 1% |
| Hadler | 7/10 | 4434 days | 1% |
| Callum | 9/10 | 4445 days | 1% |
| Max Meternich | 10/10 | 4447 days | 1% |
| Philip Donachie | 9/10 | 4449 days | 1% |
| Andreas Jung | 10/10 | 4457 days | 1% |
| Jesseca Klausch | 10/10 | 4459 days | 1% |
| Vincent Schaeflier | 9/10 | 4459 days | 1% |
| Victor Herranz | 10/10 | 4464 days | 1% |
| Nimh Oudhof | 10/10 | 4465 days | 1% |
| Luca Willensrock | 9/10 | 4477 days | 1% |
| Arnaud Memay | 7/10 | 4485 days | 1% |
| Julia Ahrend | 10/10 | 4495 days | 1% |
| Molly Ladd | 8/10 | 4794 days | 1% |
| Missy and Chaz | 10/10 | 4808 days | 1% |
| Pink | 8/10 | 4831 days | 1% |
| Johannes Mullner | 10/10 | 5153 days | 1% |
| Jessica Marling | 10/10 | 5153 days | 1% |
| Camille and Lucie | 9/10 | 5154 days | 1% |
| Jaroslav Gajdos | 10/10 | 5166 days | 1% |
| Carl & Desiree Potter | 9/10 | 5175 days | 1% |
| Yves & Sylvia | 7/10 | 5177 days | 1% |
| Andy Bridgman | 8/10 | 5177 days | 1% |
| Maximilian Heller | 9/10 | 5184 days | 1% |
| Luis Valenzuela | 7/10 | 5185 days | 1% |
| FamilyGuy | 9/10 | 5223 days | 1% |
| Clement_Weather | 7/10 | 5223 days | 1% |
| N smith | 9/10 | 5223 days | 1% |
| Annie | 10/10 | 5254 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5492 days | 1% |
| Gema | 9/10 | 5512 days | 1% |
| Aimee Pollett | 7/10 | 5519 days | 1% |
| Vanessa Hanzen | 10/10 | 5521 days | 1% |
| Rissa W | 9/10 | 5529 days | 1% |
| Natthien Le Gall | 8/10 | 5530 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Stones | 10/10 | 5531 days | 1% |
| Matthijs Muijsers | 9/10 | 5550 days | 1% |
| hooperuk | 10/10 | 5863 days | 1% |
| John N | 10/10 | 5888 days | 1% |
| Blair Malcolm | 10/10 | 5903 days | 1% |
| Hailey & Fin | 10/10 | 5934 days | 1% |
| varenaee | 9/10 | 5969 days | 1% |
| Pieter Neeleman | 10/10 | 5996 days | 1% |
| WiebkeS | 10/10 | 6244 days | 1% |
| Lars Haf | 10/10 | 6246 days | 1% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Spa Park does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
3.87% 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
81%
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.