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
77.16%
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 | 381 days | 100% |
| Léo | 10/10 | 1143 days | 45% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 2877 days | 4% |
| Felix Koehler | 10/10 | 3382 days | 3% |
| Lucie Revay | 7/10 | 3404 days | 2% |
| Simon Schatz | 10/10 | 3674 days | 2% |
| Nadja Guiliani | 7/10 | 3679 days | 2% |
| Jamie Serieux | 8/10 | 3682 days | 2% |
| Philipp | 7/10 | 3688 days | 2% |
| George Bellwood | 9/10 | 3690 days | 2% |
| Sarah Dorsett | 8/10 | 3690 days | 2% |
| Lewis Cole | 8/10 | 3692 days | 2% |
| Robert Klub | 10/10 | 3711 days | 2% |
| Johannes Koch | 10/10 | 3713 days | 2% |
| Clara Loizeil | 7/10 | 3719 days | 2% |
| Patrick Veber | 8/10 | 3719 days | 2% |
| Fabian | 4/10 | 3723 days | 1% |
| Maartje | 9/10 | 3724 days | 2% |
| Anders Hauke | 9/10 | 3725 days | 2% |
| Alex Reeve | 10/10 | 3732 days | 2% |
| Eric Hertort | 10/10 | 3736 days | 2% |
| Christian Meyer | 10/10 | 3736 days | 2% |
| Melissa Fuster | 8/10 | 3740 days | 2% |
| Mikkel Palleson | 10/10 | 3740 days | 2% |
| Marek Dvonsky | 8/10 | 3741 days | 2% |
| Sam | 8/10 | 3747 days | 2% |
| Gregor | 10/10 | 3752 days | 2% |
| Shany Maydan | 10/10 | 3778 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Susanna | 9/10 | 3785 days | 1% |
| Jade Cownley | 9/10 | 4078 days | 1% |
| Pierre Planchez | 9/10 | 4097 days | 1% |
| Erik Hafuer | 9/10 | 4133 days | 1% |
| Polly Rider | 9/10 | 4159 days | 0% |
| Lea Darotchetche | 8/10 | 4320 days | 0% |
| Julia Schabenberger | 9/10 | 4398 days | 1% |
| Lola | 10/10 | 4398 days | 1% |
| Alisa | 9/10 | 4398 days | 1% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 4398 days | 1% |
| Cecilia Anderson | 9/10 | 4401 days | 1% |
| Mattias | 8/10 | 4401 days | 1% |
| Guillaume Yedoux | 8/10 | 4401 days | 1% |
| Zuzana Holubova | 8/10 | 4401 days | 1% |
| Jenny Finch | 9/10 | 4426 days | 1% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 10/10 | 4427 days | 1% |
| Florent Bouillon | 8/10 | 4427 days | 1% |
| Stephen Revah | 9/10 | 4427 days | 1% |
| Hadler | 7/10 | 4431 days | 1% |
| Callum | 9/10 | 4442 days | 1% |
| Max Meternich | 10/10 | 4444 days | 1% |
| Philip Donachie | 9/10 | 4446 days | 1% |
| Andreas Jung | 10/10 | 4454 days | 1% |
| Jesseca Klausch | 10/10 | 4456 days | 1% |
| Vincent Schaeflier | 9/10 | 4456 days | 1% |
| Victor Herranz | 10/10 | 4461 days | 1% |
| Nimh Oudhof | 10/10 | 4462 days | 1% |
| Luca Willensrock | 9/10 | 4474 days | 1% |
| Arnaud Memay | 7/10 | 4482 days | 1% |
| Julia Ahrend | 10/10 | 4492 days | 1% |
| Molly Ladd | 8/10 | 4791 days | 1% |
| Missy and Chaz | 10/10 | 4805 days | 1% |
| Pink | 8/10 | 4828 days | 1% |
| Johannes Mullner | 10/10 | 5150 days | 1% |
| Jessica Marling | 10/10 | 5150 days | 1% |
| Camille and Lucie | 9/10 | 5151 days | 1% |
| Jaroslav Gajdos | 10/10 | 5163 days | 1% |
| Carl & Desiree Potter | 9/10 | 5172 days | 1% |
| Yves & Sylvia | 7/10 | 5174 days | 1% |
| Andy Bridgman | 8/10 | 5174 days | 1% |
| Maximilian Heller | 9/10 | 5181 days | 1% |
| Luis Valenzuela | 7/10 | 5182 days | 1% |
| FamilyGuy | 9/10 | 5220 days | 1% |
| Clement_Weather | 7/10 | 5220 days | 1% |
| N smith | 9/10 | 5220 days | 1% |
| Annie | 10/10 | 5251 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5489 days | 1% |
| Gema | 9/10 | 5509 days | 1% |
| Aimee Pollett | 7/10 | 5516 days | 1% |
| Vanessa Hanzen | 10/10 | 5518 days | 1% |
| Rissa W | 9/10 | 5526 days | 1% |
| Natthien Le Gall | 8/10 | 5527 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Stones | 10/10 | 5528 days | 1% |
| Matthijs Muijsers | 9/10 | 5547 days | 1% |
| hooperuk | 10/10 | 5860 days | 1% |
| John N | 10/10 | 5885 days | 1% |
| Blair Malcolm | 10/10 | 5900 days | 1% |
| Hailey & Fin | 10/10 | 5931 days | 1% |
| varenaee | 9/10 | 5966 days | 1% |
| Pieter Neeleman | 10/10 | 5993 days | 1% |
| WiebkeS | 10/10 | 6241 days | 1% |
| Lars Haf | 10/10 | 6243 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.