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 91 reviews. There are 90 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 1 invalid review 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
79.89%
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 | 27 days | 100% |
| Léo | 10/10 | 789 days | 85% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 2523 days | 4% |
| Felix Koehler | 10/10 | 3028 days | 3% |
| Lucie Revay | 7/10 | 3050 days | 3% |
| Simon Schatz | 10/10 | 3320 days | 2% |
| Nadja Guiliani | 7/10 | 3325 days | 2% |
| Jamie Serieux | 8/10 | 3328 days | 2% |
| Philipp | 7/10 | 3334 days | 2% |
| George Bellwood | 9/10 | 3336 days | 2% |
| Sarah Dorsett | 8/10 | 3336 days | 2% |
| Lewis Cole | 8/10 | 3338 days | 2% |
| Robert Klub | 10/10 | 3357 days | 2% |
| Johannes Koch | 10/10 | 3359 days | 2% |
| Clara Loizeil | 7/10 | 3365 days | 2% |
| Patrick Veber | 8/10 | 3365 days | 2% |
| Fabian | 4/10 | 3369 days | 1% |
| Maartje | 9/10 | 3370 days | 2% |
| Anders Hauke | 9/10 | 3371 days | 2% |
| Alex Reeve | 10/10 | 3378 days | 2% |
| Eric Hertort | 10/10 | 3382 days | 2% |
| Christian Meyer | 10/10 | 3382 days | 2% |
| Melissa Fuster | 8/10 | 3386 days | 2% |
| Mikkel Palleson | 10/10 | 3386 days | 2% |
| Marek Dvonsky | 8/10 | 3387 days | 2% |
| Sam | 8/10 | 3393 days | 2% |
| Gregor | 10/10 | 3398 days | 2% |
| Shany Maydan | 10/10 | 3424 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Susanna | 9/10 | 3431 days | 2% |
| Jade Cownley | 9/10 | 3724 days | 1% |
| Pierre Planchez | 9/10 | 3743 days | 1% |
| Erik Hafuer | 9/10 | 3779 days | 1% |
| Polly Rider | 9/10 | 3805 days | 1% |
| Lea Darotchetche | 8/10 | 3966 days | 0% |
| Julia Schabenberger | 9/10 | 4044 days | 0% |
| Lola | 10/10 | 4044 days | 0% |
| Alisa | 9/10 | 4044 days | 0% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 4044 days | 0% |
| Cecilia Anderson | 9/10 | 4047 days | 0% |
| Mattias | 8/10 | 4047 days | 0% |
| Guillaume Yedoux | 8/10 | 4047 days | 0% |
| Zuzana Holubova | 8/10 | 4047 days | 0% |
| Jenny Finch | 9/10 | 4072 days | 0% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 10/10 | 4073 days | 0% |
| Florent Bouillon | 8/10 | 4073 days | 0% |
| Stephen Revah | 9/10 | 4073 days | 0% |
| Hadler | 7/10 | 4077 days | 0% |
| Callum | 9/10 | 4088 days | 0% |
| Max Meternich | 10/10 | 4090 days | 0% |
| Philip Donachie | 9/10 | 4092 days | 0% |
| Andreas Jung | 10/10 | 4100 days | 0% |
| Jesseca Klausch | 10/10 | 4102 days | 0% |
| Vincent Schaeflier | 9/10 | 4102 days | 0% |
| Victor Herranz | 10/10 | 4107 days | 0% |
| Nimh Oudhof | 10/10 | 4108 days | 0% |
| Luca Willensrock | 9/10 | 4120 days | 0% |
| Arnaud Memay | 7/10 | 4128 days | 0% |
| Julia Ahrend | 10/10 | 4138 days | 0% |
| Molly Ladd | 8/10 | 4437 days | 1% |
| Missy and Chaz | 10/10 | 4451 days | 1% |
| Pink | 8/10 | 4474 days | 1% |
| Johannes Mullner | 10/10 | 4796 days | 1% |
| Jessica Marling | 10/10 | 4796 days | 1% |
| Camille and Lucie | 9/10 | 4797 days | 1% |
| Jaroslav Gajdos | 10/10 | 4809 days | 1% |
| Carl & Desiree Potter | 9/10 | 4818 days | 1% |
| Yves & Sylvia | 7/10 | 4820 days | 1% |
| Andy Bridgman | 8/10 | 4820 days | 1% |
| Maximilian Heller | 9/10 | 4827 days | 1% |
| Luis Valenzuela | 7/10 | 4828 days | 1% |
| FamilyGuy | 9/10 | 4866 days | 1% |
| Clement_Weather | 7/10 | 4866 days | 1% |
| N smith | 9/10 | 4866 days | 1% |
| Annie | 10/10 | 4897 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5135 days | 1% |
| Gema | 9/10 | 5155 days | 1% |
| Aimee Pollett | 7/10 | 5162 days | 1% |
| Vanessa Hanzen | 10/10 | 5164 days | 1% |
| Rissa W | 9/10 | 5172 days | 1% |
| Natthien Le Gall | 8/10 | 5173 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Stones | 10/10 | 5174 days | 1% |
| Matthijs Muijsers | 9/10 | 5193 days | 1% |
| hooperuk | 10/10 | 5506 days | 1% |
| John N | 10/10 | 5531 days | 1% |
| Blair Malcolm | 10/10 | 5546 days | 1% |
| Hailey & Fin | 10/10 | 5577 days | 1% |
| varenaee | 9/10 | 5612 days | 1% |
| Pieter Neeleman | 10/10 | 5639 days | 1% |
| WiebkeS | 10/10 | 5887 days | 1% |
| Lars Haf | 10/10 | 5889 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
3.03% 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
83%
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.