Kia ora, 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
75.91%
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 | 587 days | 100% |
| Léo | 10/10 | 1349 days | 29% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 3083 days | 4% |
| Felix Koehler | 10/10 | 3588 days | 2% |
| Lucie Revay | 7/10 | 3610 days | 2% |
| Simon Schatz | 10/10 | 3880 days | 2% |
| Nadja Guiliani | 7/10 | 3885 days | 1% |
| Jamie Serieux | 8/10 | 3888 days | 1% |
| Philipp | 7/10 | 3894 days | 1% |
| George Bellwood | 9/10 | 3896 days | 1% |
| Sarah Dorsett | 8/10 | 3896 days | 1% |
| Lewis Cole | 8/10 | 3898 days | 1% |
| Robert Klub | 10/10 | 3917 days | 1% |
| Johannes Koch | 10/10 | 3919 days | 1% |
| Clara Loizeil | 7/10 | 3925 days | 1% |
| Patrick Veber | 8/10 | 3925 days | 1% |
| Fabian | 4/10 | 3929 days | 1% |
| Maartje | 9/10 | 3930 days | 1% |
| Anders Hauke | 9/10 | 3931 days | 1% |
| Alex Reeve | 10/10 | 3938 days | 1% |
| Eric Hertort | 10/10 | 3942 days | 1% |
| Christian Meyer | 10/10 | 3942 days | 1% |
| Melissa Fuster | 8/10 | 3946 days | 1% |
| Mikkel Palleson | 10/10 | 3946 days | 1% |
| Marek Dvonsky | 8/10 | 3947 days | 1% |
| Sam | 8/10 | 3953 days | 1% |
| Gregor | 10/10 | 3958 days | 1% |
| Shany Maydan | 10/10 | 3984 days | 1% |
| Sebastian and Susanna | 9/10 | 3991 days | 1% |
| Jade Cownley | 9/10 | 4284 days | 0% |
| Pierre Planchez | 9/10 | 4303 days | 0% |
| Erik Hafuer | 9/10 | 4339 days | 0% |
| Polly Rider | 9/10 | 4365 days | 0% |
| Lea Darotchetche | 8/10 | 4526 days | 2% |
| Julia Schabenberger | 9/10 | 4604 days | 2% |
| Lola | 10/10 | 4604 days | 2% |
| Alisa | 9/10 | 4604 days | 2% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 4604 days | 2% |
| Cecilia Anderson | 9/10 | 4607 days | 2% |
| Mattias | 8/10 | 4607 days | 2% |
| Guillaume Yedoux | 8/10 | 4607 days | 2% |
| Zuzana Holubova | 8/10 | 4607 days | 2% |
| Jenny Finch | 9/10 | 4632 days | 2% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 10/10 | 4633 days | 2% |
| Florent Bouillon | 8/10 | 4633 days | 2% |
| Stephen Revah | 9/10 | 4633 days | 2% |
| Hadler | 7/10 | 4637 days | 1% |
| Callum | 9/10 | 4648 days | 2% |
| Max Meternich | 10/10 | 4650 days | 2% |
| Philip Donachie | 9/10 | 4652 days | 2% |
| Andreas Jung | 10/10 | 4660 days | 2% |
| Jesseca Klausch | 10/10 | 4662 days | 2% |
| Vincent Schaeflier | 9/10 | 4662 days | 2% |
| Victor Herranz | 10/10 | 4667 days | 2% |
| Nimh Oudhof | 10/10 | 4668 days | 2% |
| Luca Willensrock | 9/10 | 4680 days | 2% |
| Arnaud Memay | 7/10 | 4688 days | 1% |
| Julia Ahrend | 10/10 | 4698 days | 2% |
| Molly Ladd | 8/10 | 4997 days | 2% |
| Missy and Chaz | 10/10 | 5011 days | 2% |
| Pink | 8/10 | 5034 days | 2% |
| Johannes Mullner | 10/10 | 5356 days | 2% |
| Jessica Marling | 10/10 | 5356 days | 2% |
| Camille and Lucie | 9/10 | 5357 days | 2% |
| Jaroslav Gajdos | 10/10 | 5369 days | 2% |
| Carl & Desiree Potter | 9/10 | 5378 days | 2% |
| Yves & Sylvia | 7/10 | 5380 days | 1% |
| Andy Bridgman | 8/10 | 5380 days | 2% |
| Maximilian Heller | 9/10 | 5387 days | 2% |
| Luis Valenzuela | 7/10 | 5388 days | 1% |
| FamilyGuy | 9/10 | 5426 days | 2% |
| Clement_Weather | 7/10 | 5426 days | 1% |
| N smith | 9/10 | 5426 days | 2% |
| Annie | 10/10 | 5457 days | 2% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5695 days | 2% |
| Gema | 9/10 | 5715 days | 2% |
| Aimee Pollett | 7/10 | 5722 days | 1% |
| Vanessa Hanzen | 10/10 | 5724 days | 2% |
| Rissa W | 9/10 | 5732 days | 2% |
| Natthien Le Gall | 8/10 | 5733 days | 2% |
| Rebecca Stones | 10/10 | 5734 days | 2% |
| Matthijs Muijsers | 9/10 | 5753 days | 2% |
| hooperuk | 10/10 | 6066 days | 2% |
| John N | 10/10 | 6091 days | 2% |
| Blair Malcolm | 10/10 | 6106 days | 2% |
| Hailey & Fin | 10/10 | 6137 days | 2% |
| varenaee | 9/10 | 6172 days | 2% |
| Pieter Neeleman | 10/10 | 6199 days | 2% |
| WiebkeS | 10/10 | 6447 days | 2% |
| Lars Haf | 10/10 | 6449 days | 2% |
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
4.30% 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.