Hey, 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
76.00%
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 | 567 days | 100% |
| Léo | 10/10 | 1329 days | 30% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 3063 days | 4% |
| Felix Koehler | 10/10 | 3568 days | 2% |
| Lucie Revay | 7/10 | 3590 days | 2% |
| Simon Schatz | 10/10 | 3860 days | 2% |
| Nadja Guiliani | 7/10 | 3865 days | 1% |
| Jamie Serieux | 8/10 | 3868 days | 1% |
| Philipp | 7/10 | 3874 days | 1% |
| George Bellwood | 9/10 | 3876 days | 1% |
| Sarah Dorsett | 8/10 | 3876 days | 1% |
| Lewis Cole | 8/10 | 3878 days | 1% |
| Robert Klub | 10/10 | 3897 days | 1% |
| Johannes Koch | 10/10 | 3899 days | 1% |
| Clara Loizeil | 7/10 | 3905 days | 1% |
| Patrick Veber | 8/10 | 3905 days | 1% |
| Fabian | 4/10 | 3909 days | 1% |
| Maartje | 9/10 | 3910 days | 1% |
| Anders Hauke | 9/10 | 3911 days | 1% |
| Alex Reeve | 10/10 | 3918 days | 1% |
| Eric Hertort | 10/10 | 3922 days | 1% |
| Christian Meyer | 10/10 | 3922 days | 1% |
| Melissa Fuster | 8/10 | 3926 days | 1% |
| Mikkel Palleson | 10/10 | 3926 days | 1% |
| Marek Dvonsky | 8/10 | 3927 days | 1% |
| Sam | 8/10 | 3933 days | 1% |
| Gregor | 10/10 | 3938 days | 1% |
| Shany Maydan | 10/10 | 3964 days | 1% |
| Sebastian and Susanna | 9/10 | 3971 days | 1% |
| Jade Cownley | 9/10 | 4264 days | 0% |
| Pierre Planchez | 9/10 | 4283 days | 0% |
| Erik Hafuer | 9/10 | 4319 days | 0% |
| Polly Rider | 9/10 | 4345 days | 0% |
| Lea Darotchetche | 8/10 | 4506 days | 1% |
| Julia Schabenberger | 9/10 | 4584 days | 1% |
| Lola | 10/10 | 4584 days | 1% |
| Alisa | 9/10 | 4584 days | 1% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 4584 days | 1% |
| Cecilia Anderson | 9/10 | 4587 days | 1% |
| Mattias | 8/10 | 4587 days | 1% |
| Guillaume Yedoux | 8/10 | 4587 days | 1% |
| Zuzana Holubova | 8/10 | 4587 days | 1% |
| Jenny Finch | 9/10 | 4612 days | 1% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 10/10 | 4613 days | 1% |
| Florent Bouillon | 8/10 | 4613 days | 1% |
| Stephen Revah | 9/10 | 4613 days | 1% |
| Hadler | 7/10 | 4617 days | 1% |
| Callum | 9/10 | 4628 days | 1% |
| Max Meternich | 10/10 | 4630 days | 1% |
| Philip Donachie | 9/10 | 4632 days | 1% |
| Andreas Jung | 10/10 | 4640 days | 1% |
| Jesseca Klausch | 10/10 | 4642 days | 1% |
| Vincent Schaeflier | 9/10 | 4642 days | 1% |
| Victor Herranz | 10/10 | 4647 days | 1% |
| Nimh Oudhof | 10/10 | 4648 days | 1% |
| Luca Willensrock | 9/10 | 4660 days | 1% |
| Arnaud Memay | 7/10 | 4668 days | 1% |
| Julia Ahrend | 10/10 | 4678 days | 1% |
| Molly Ladd | 8/10 | 4977 days | 1% |
| Missy and Chaz | 10/10 | 4991 days | 1% |
| Pink | 8/10 | 5014 days | 1% |
| Johannes Mullner | 10/10 | 5336 days | 1% |
| Jessica Marling | 10/10 | 5336 days | 1% |
| Camille and Lucie | 9/10 | 5337 days | 1% |
| Jaroslav Gajdos | 10/10 | 5349 days | 1% |
| Carl & Desiree Potter | 9/10 | 5358 days | 1% |
| Yves & Sylvia | 7/10 | 5360 days | 1% |
| Andy Bridgman | 8/10 | 5360 days | 1% |
| Maximilian Heller | 9/10 | 5367 days | 1% |
| Luis Valenzuela | 7/10 | 5368 days | 1% |
| FamilyGuy | 9/10 | 5406 days | 1% |
| Clement_Weather | 7/10 | 5406 days | 1% |
| N smith | 9/10 | 5406 days | 1% |
| Annie | 10/10 | 5437 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5675 days | 1% |
| Gema | 9/10 | 5695 days | 1% |
| Aimee Pollett | 7/10 | 5702 days | 1% |
| Vanessa Hanzen | 10/10 | 5704 days | 1% |
| Rissa W | 9/10 | 5712 days | 1% |
| Natthien Le Gall | 8/10 | 5713 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Stones | 10/10 | 5714 days | 1% |
| Matthijs Muijsers | 9/10 | 5733 days | 1% |
| hooperuk | 10/10 | 6046 days | 1% |
| John N | 10/10 | 6071 days | 1% |
| Blair Malcolm | 10/10 | 6086 days | 1% |
| Hailey & Fin | 10/10 | 6117 days | 1% |
| varenaee | 9/10 | 6152 days | 1% |
| Pieter Neeleman | 10/10 | 6179 days | 1% |
| WiebkeS | 10/10 | 6427 days | 1% |
| Lars Haf | 10/10 | 6429 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
4.27% 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
80%
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.