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
76.62%
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 | 283 days | 100% |
| Léo | 10/10 | 1045 days | 55% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 2779 days | 4% |
| Felix Koehler | 10/10 | 3284 days | 3% |
| Lucie Revay | 7/10 | 3306 days | 3% |
| Simon Schatz | 10/10 | 3576 days | 2% |
| Nadja Guiliani | 7/10 | 3581 days | 2% |
| Jamie Serieux | 8/10 | 3584 days | 2% |
| Philipp | 7/10 | 3590 days | 2% |
| George Bellwood | 9/10 | 3592 days | 2% |
| Sarah Dorsett | 8/10 | 3592 days | 2% |
| Lewis Cole | 8/10 | 3594 days | 2% |
| Robert Klub | 10/10 | 3613 days | 2% |
| Johannes Koch | 10/10 | 3615 days | 2% |
| Clara Loizeil | 7/10 | 3621 days | 2% |
| Patrick Veber | 8/10 | 3621 days | 2% |
| Fabian | 4/10 | 3625 days | 1% |
| Maartje | 9/10 | 3626 days | 2% |
| Anders Hauke | 9/10 | 3627 days | 2% |
| Alex Reeve | 10/10 | 3634 days | 2% |
| Eric Hertort | 10/10 | 3638 days | 2% |
| Christian Meyer | 10/10 | 3638 days | 2% |
| Melissa Fuster | 8/10 | 3642 days | 2% |
| Mikkel Palleson | 10/10 | 3642 days | 2% |
| Marek Dvonsky | 8/10 | 3643 days | 2% |
| Sam | 8/10 | 3649 days | 2% |
| Gregor | 10/10 | 3654 days | 2% |
| Shany Maydan | 10/10 | 3680 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Susanna | 9/10 | 3687 days | 2% |
| Jade Cownley | 9/10 | 3980 days | 1% |
| Pierre Planchez | 9/10 | 3999 days | 1% |
| Erik Hafuer | 9/10 | 4035 days | 1% |
| Polly Rider | 9/10 | 4061 days | 1% |
| Lea Darotchetche | 8/10 | 4222 days | 0% |
| Julia Schabenberger | 9/10 | 4300 days | 0% |
| Lola | 10/10 | 4300 days | 0% |
| Alisa | 9/10 | 4300 days | 0% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 4300 days | 0% |
| Cecilia Anderson | 9/10 | 4303 days | 0% |
| Mattias | 8/10 | 4303 days | 0% |
| Guillaume Yedoux | 8/10 | 4303 days | 0% |
| Zuzana Holubova | 8/10 | 4303 days | 0% |
| Jenny Finch | 9/10 | 4328 days | 0% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 10/10 | 4329 days | 0% |
| Florent Bouillon | 8/10 | 4329 days | 0% |
| Stephen Revah | 9/10 | 4329 days | 0% |
| Hadler | 7/10 | 4333 days | 0% |
| Callum | 9/10 | 4344 days | 0% |
| Max Meternich | 10/10 | 4346 days | 0% |
| Philip Donachie | 9/10 | 4348 days | 0% |
| Andreas Jung | 10/10 | 4356 days | 0% |
| Jesseca Klausch | 10/10 | 4358 days | 0% |
| Vincent Schaeflier | 9/10 | 4358 days | 0% |
| Victor Herranz | 10/10 | 4363 days | 0% |
| Nimh Oudhof | 10/10 | 4364 days | 0% |
| Luca Willensrock | 9/10 | 4376 days | 0% |
| Arnaud Memay | 7/10 | 4384 days | 1% |
| Julia Ahrend | 10/10 | 4394 days | 1% |
| Molly Ladd | 8/10 | 4693 days | 1% |
| Missy and Chaz | 10/10 | 4707 days | 1% |
| Pink | 8/10 | 4730 days | 1% |
| Johannes Mullner | 10/10 | 5052 days | 1% |
| Jessica Marling | 10/10 | 5052 days | 1% |
| Camille and Lucie | 9/10 | 5053 days | 1% |
| Jaroslav Gajdos | 10/10 | 5065 days | 1% |
| Carl & Desiree Potter | 9/10 | 5074 days | 1% |
| Yves & Sylvia | 7/10 | 5076 days | 1% |
| Andy Bridgman | 8/10 | 5076 days | 1% |
| Maximilian Heller | 9/10 | 5083 days | 1% |
| Luis Valenzuela | 7/10 | 5084 days | 1% |
| FamilyGuy | 9/10 | 5122 days | 1% |
| Clement_Weather | 7/10 | 5122 days | 1% |
| N smith | 9/10 | 5122 days | 1% |
| Annie | 10/10 | 5153 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5391 days | 1% |
| Gema | 9/10 | 5411 days | 1% |
| Aimee Pollett | 7/10 | 5418 days | 1% |
| Vanessa Hanzen | 10/10 | 5420 days | 1% |
| Rissa W | 9/10 | 5428 days | 1% |
| Natthien Le Gall | 8/10 | 5429 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Stones | 10/10 | 5430 days | 1% |
| Matthijs Muijsers | 9/10 | 5449 days | 1% |
| hooperuk | 10/10 | 5762 days | 1% |
| John N | 10/10 | 5787 days | 1% |
| Blair Malcolm | 10/10 | 5802 days | 1% |
| Hailey & Fin | 10/10 | 5833 days | 1% |
| varenaee | 9/10 | 5868 days | 1% |
| Pieter Neeleman | 10/10 | 5895 days | 1% |
| WiebkeS | 10/10 | 6143 days | 1% |
| Lars Haf | 10/10 | 6145 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
4.05% 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.