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
77.03%
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 | 248 days | 100% |
| Léo | 10/10 | 1010 days | 58% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 2744 days | 4% |
| Felix Koehler | 10/10 | 3249 days | 3% |
| Lucie Revay | 7/10 | 3271 days | 3% |
| Simon Schatz | 10/10 | 3541 days | 2% |
| Nadja Guiliani | 7/10 | 3546 days | 2% |
| Jamie Serieux | 8/10 | 3549 days | 2% |
| Philipp | 7/10 | 3555 days | 2% |
| George Bellwood | 9/10 | 3557 days | 2% |
| Sarah Dorsett | 8/10 | 3557 days | 2% |
| Lewis Cole | 8/10 | 3559 days | 2% |
| Robert Klub | 10/10 | 3578 days | 2% |
| Johannes Koch | 10/10 | 3580 days | 2% |
| Clara Loizeil | 7/10 | 3586 days | 2% |
| Patrick Veber | 8/10 | 3586 days | 2% |
| Fabian | 4/10 | 3590 days | 1% |
| Maartje | 9/10 | 3591 days | 2% |
| Anders Hauke | 9/10 | 3592 days | 2% |
| Alex Reeve | 10/10 | 3599 days | 2% |
| Eric Hertort | 10/10 | 3603 days | 2% |
| Christian Meyer | 10/10 | 3603 days | 2% |
| Melissa Fuster | 8/10 | 3607 days | 2% |
| Mikkel Palleson | 10/10 | 3607 days | 2% |
| Marek Dvonsky | 8/10 | 3608 days | 2% |
| Sam | 8/10 | 3614 days | 2% |
| Gregor | 10/10 | 3619 days | 2% |
| Shany Maydan | 10/10 | 3645 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Susanna | 9/10 | 3652 days | 2% |
| Jade Cownley | 9/10 | 3945 days | 1% |
| Pierre Planchez | 9/10 | 3964 days | 1% |
| Erik Hafuer | 9/10 | 4000 days | 1% |
| Polly Rider | 9/10 | 4026 days | 1% |
| Lea Darotchetche | 8/10 | 4187 days | 0% |
| Julia Schabenberger | 9/10 | 4265 days | 0% |
| Lola | 10/10 | 4265 days | 0% |
| Alisa | 9/10 | 4265 days | 0% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 4265 days | 0% |
| Cecilia Anderson | 9/10 | 4268 days | 0% |
| Mattias | 8/10 | 4268 days | 0% |
| Guillaume Yedoux | 8/10 | 4268 days | 0% |
| Zuzana Holubova | 8/10 | 4268 days | 0% |
| Jenny Finch | 9/10 | 4293 days | 0% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 10/10 | 4294 days | 0% |
| Florent Bouillon | 8/10 | 4294 days | 0% |
| Stephen Revah | 9/10 | 4294 days | 0% |
| Hadler | 7/10 | 4298 days | 0% |
| Callum | 9/10 | 4309 days | 0% |
| Max Meternich | 10/10 | 4311 days | 0% |
| Philip Donachie | 9/10 | 4313 days | 0% |
| Andreas Jung | 10/10 | 4321 days | 0% |
| Jesseca Klausch | 10/10 | 4323 days | 0% |
| Vincent Schaeflier | 9/10 | 4323 days | 0% |
| Victor Herranz | 10/10 | 4328 days | 0% |
| Nimh Oudhof | 10/10 | 4329 days | 0% |
| Luca Willensrock | 9/10 | 4341 days | 0% |
| Arnaud Memay | 7/10 | 4349 days | 0% |
| Julia Ahrend | 10/10 | 4359 days | 0% |
| Molly Ladd | 8/10 | 4658 days | 1% |
| Missy and Chaz | 10/10 | 4672 days | 1% |
| Pink | 8/10 | 4695 days | 1% |
| Johannes Mullner | 10/10 | 5017 days | 1% |
| Jessica Marling | 10/10 | 5017 days | 1% |
| Camille and Lucie | 9/10 | 5018 days | 1% |
| Jaroslav Gajdos | 10/10 | 5030 days | 1% |
| Carl & Desiree Potter | 9/10 | 5039 days | 1% |
| Yves & Sylvia | 7/10 | 5041 days | 1% |
| Andy Bridgman | 8/10 | 5041 days | 1% |
| Maximilian Heller | 9/10 | 5048 days | 1% |
| Luis Valenzuela | 7/10 | 5049 days | 1% |
| FamilyGuy | 9/10 | 5087 days | 1% |
| Clement_Weather | 7/10 | 5087 days | 1% |
| N smith | 9/10 | 5087 days | 1% |
| Annie | 10/10 | 5118 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5356 days | 1% |
| Gema | 9/10 | 5376 days | 1% |
| Aimee Pollett | 7/10 | 5383 days | 1% |
| Vanessa Hanzen | 10/10 | 5385 days | 1% |
| Rissa W | 9/10 | 5393 days | 1% |
| Natthien Le Gall | 8/10 | 5394 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Stones | 10/10 | 5395 days | 1% |
| Matthijs Muijsers | 9/10 | 5414 days | 1% |
| hooperuk | 10/10 | 5727 days | 1% |
| John N | 10/10 | 5752 days | 1% |
| Blair Malcolm | 10/10 | 5767 days | 1% |
| Hailey & Fin | 10/10 | 5798 days | 1% |
| varenaee | 9/10 | 5833 days | 1% |
| Pieter Neeleman | 10/10 | 5860 days | 1% |
| WiebkeS | 10/10 | 6108 days | 1% |
| Lars Haf | 10/10 | 6110 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
3.91% 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.