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 Dive Tutukaka.
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.
Dive Tutukaka
Valid Reviews
87 Valid Reviews
The Dive Tutukaka experience has a total of 88 reviews. There are 87 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 87 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 39 |
|
45% |
| 9/10 | 28 |
|
32% |
| 8/10 | 15 |
|
17% |
| 7/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
90.80% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Dive Tutukaka valid reviews is 90.80% and is based on 87 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
72 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 87 valid reviews, the experience has 72 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 72 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 28 |
|
39% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
36% |
| 8/10 | 14 |
|
19% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
89.86% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Dive Tutukaka face-to-face reviews is 89.86% and is based on 72 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
91.91%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barbara McNab | 10/10 | 3074 days | 100% |
| Cherie and Dan | 10/10 | 3414 days | 72% |
| Netta Tyler | 10/10 | 3466 days | 68% |
| Theerada Wongkaew | 10/10 | 3508 days | 64% |
| Gazmira Molina | 8/10 | 3551 days | 59% |
| Jessica Nasstrom | 8/10 | 3558 days | 59% |
| Adeline | 8/10 | 3563 days | 58% |
| Rebecca Pierce | 10/10 | 3589 days | 58% |
| Jane Simmons | 10/10 | 3711 days | 47% |
| Julia Clark | 9/10 | 3779 days | 41% |
| Kristina Breitwieser | 10/10 | 3784 days | 41% |
| Olivier Anciaux | 7/10 | 3797 days | 37% |
| Justine Hoffmann | 9/10 | 3829 days | 37% |
| Ruven Rintelmann | 9/10 | 3834 days | 37% |
| Niels Hoogendooen | 8/10 | 3847 days | 35% |
| Marie Brauherr | 10/10 | 3855 days | 36% |
| Luisa and Hannes | 8/10 | 3859 days | 34% |
| Christian Boudreau | 9/10 | 3877 days | 33% |
| Manuela Opprecht | 7/10 | 4209 days | 5% |
| Damaris Mayer | 3/10 | 4209 days | 0% |
| Sophie Huybrechts | 10/10 | 4251 days | 3% |
| Ally Cook | 9/10 | 4255 days | 3% |
| Jessie Sabine | 9/10 | 4554 days | 34% |
| Katrina Gamby | 10/10 | 4912 days | 34% |
| Sonia Sennane | 10/10 | 5266 days | 34% |
| Melanie Friessen | 9/10 | 5267 days | 34% |
| Barry Baily | 10/10 | 5278 days | 34% |
| Elisabeth | 9/10 | 5287 days | 34% |
| Lotte Foged | 8/10 | 5292 days | 34% |
| Anika | 8/10 | 5293 days | 34% |
| Paul | 8/10 | 5363 days | 34% |
| Elke & Charlotte | 9/10 | 5376 days | 34% |
| Kris Gijbels | 9/10 | 5609 days | 34% |
| Patrick Gloede | 10/10 | 5614 days | 34% |
| Norm and Sky | 9/10 | 5619 days | 34% |
| Roald and Ellen | 9/10 | 5620 days | 34% |
| B Kleven | 10/10 | 5625 days | 34% |
| Ann-Katrine & Sille | 10/10 | 5629 days | 34% |
| Erland Ostberg | 8/10 | 5633 days | 34% |
| Helene Descamps | 9/10 | 5647 days | 34% |
| Heather Deobald | 9/10 | 5649 days | 34% |
| Christina Fischer | 6/10 | 5654 days | 29% |
| Shoe | 10/10 | 5721 days | 34% |
| RobThexton | 10/10 | 5874 days | 34% |
| Martin | 9/10 | 5935 days | 34% |
| cpochin | 10/10 | 5965 days | 34% |
| John Casey | 10/10 | 5977 days | 34% |
| Peter Schmidt | 10/10 | 5996 days | 34% |
| Elisabeth Egerup | 10/10 | 6003 days | 34% |
| Vera Van Schie | 10/10 | 6004 days | 34% |
| Chris Glasg | 10/10 | 6004 days | 34% |
| Klass | 9/10 | 6010 days | 34% |
| Belinda Godhard | 9/10 | 6021 days | 34% |
| Theta | 9/10 | 6024 days | 34% |
| jamesg | 9/10 | 6084 days | 34% |
| Mille Winther | 10/10 | 6097 days | 34% |
| Christine Van Den Berg Michele Imbach | 10/10 | 6109 days | 34% |
| Eilahtan4 | 10/10 | 6147 days | 34% |
| NZDiver | 10/10 | 6208 days | 34% |
| Nikki Turner | 10/10 | 6251 days | 34% |
| Christine Dadd | 8/10 | 6318 days | 34% |
| KatieR | 10/10 | 6328 days | 34% |
| Michael Maddams | 9/10 | 6328 days | 34% |
| Russ C | 8/10 | 6330 days | 34% |
| danam | 10/10 | 6331 days | 34% |
| Katy1 | 9/10 | 6332 days | 34% |
| StefanieGermany | 9/10 | 6347 days | 34% |
| lannie | 9/10 | 6363 days | 34% |
| AbigailB | 10/10 | 6375 days | 34% |
| ReneeA | 10/10 | 6378 days | 34% |
| Ute | 9/10 | 6382 days | 34% |
| Annika | 10/10 | 6394 days | 34% |
| Salick | 9/10 | 6394 days | 34% |
| Thomas | 8/10 | 6401 days | 34% |
| Prentner | 10/10 | 6410 days | 34% |
| Evi | 9/10 | 6435 days | 34% |
| Limor | 8/10 | 6436 days | 34% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 6545 days | 34% |
| Lee Chapman | 10/10 | 6646 days | 34% |
| Jo and Tony | 10/10 | 6722 days | 34% |
| Lara Gema Conde | 5/10 | 6822 days | 24% |
| Trish | 10/10 | 7059 days | 34% |
| Fran | 8/10 | 7060 days | 34% |
| SueLinsk | 10/10 | 7060 days | 34% |
| Rosemary | 9/10 | 7060 days | 34% |
| Martin Christina | 9/10 | 7066 days | 34% |
| Meike | 8/10 | 7093 days | 34% |
Adjustments
Several adjustments to the weighted average are added to improve relevancy and credibility. These adjustments apply equally to all experiences that meet the criteria.
Sample Size Adjustment
No Adjustment
A reasonable number of reviews are necessary in order for the average to be credible and for an experience to take a prime position within the ranking tables. As such, experiences with only a few reviews have a moderated score. This does not mean that the experience or the reviews can't be trusted. The Dive Tutukaka experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-2.09% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 123 days. However the Dive Tutukaka experience does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
In addition, an experience's ranking score may be adjusted for each day there is no new ranking. After 1 day the adjustment comes into effect. The maximum number of days that can be adjusted for is 200 days. Due to the seasonal nature of many businesses, this adjustment is applied dynamically throughout the year.
The Dive Tutukaka experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -2.06% |
| 198 | -2.07% |
| 199 | -2.08% |
| 200 | -2.09% |
| 201 | -2.10% |
| 202 | -2.12% |
| 203 | -2.13% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.02% 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 customers 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
91%
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.