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
91.85%
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 | 3033 days | 100% |
| Cherie and Dan | 10/10 | 3373 days | 72% |
| Netta Tyler | 10/10 | 3426 days | 68% |
| Theerada Wongkaew | 10/10 | 3467 days | 65% |
| Gazmira Molina | 8/10 | 3510 days | 60% |
| Jessica Nasstrom | 8/10 | 3517 days | 59% |
| Adeline | 8/10 | 3522 days | 59% |
| Rebecca Pierce | 10/10 | 3549 days | 58% |
| Jane Simmons | 10/10 | 3671 days | 48% |
| Julia Clark | 9/10 | 3738 days | 42% |
| Kristina Breitwieser | 10/10 | 3743 days | 42% |
| Olivier Anciaux | 7/10 | 3756 days | 38% |
| Justine Hoffmann | 9/10 | 3788 days | 38% |
| Ruven Rintelmann | 9/10 | 3793 days | 38% |
| Niels Hoogendooen | 8/10 | 3806 days | 36% |
| Marie Brauherr | 10/10 | 3814 days | 37% |
| Luisa and Hannes | 8/10 | 3818 days | 35% |
| Christian Boudreau | 9/10 | 3836 days | 34% |
| Manuela Opprecht | 7/10 | 4168 days | 7% |
| Damaris Mayer | 3/10 | 4168 days | 0% |
| Sophie Huybrechts | 10/10 | 4210 days | 4% |
| Ally Cook | 9/10 | 4214 days | 4% |
| Jessie Sabine | 9/10 | 4513 days | 32% |
| Katrina Gamby | 10/10 | 4871 days | 32% |
| Sonia Sennane | 10/10 | 5225 days | 32% |
| Melanie Friessen | 9/10 | 5226 days | 32% |
| Barry Baily | 10/10 | 5237 days | 32% |
| Elisabeth | 9/10 | 5246 days | 32% |
| Lotte Foged | 8/10 | 5251 days | 31% |
| Anika | 8/10 | 5252 days | 31% |
| Paul | 8/10 | 5322 days | 31% |
| Elke & Charlotte | 9/10 | 5335 days | 32% |
| Kris Gijbels | 9/10 | 5568 days | 32% |
| Patrick Gloede | 10/10 | 5573 days | 32% |
| Norm and Sky | 9/10 | 5578 days | 32% |
| Roald and Ellen | 9/10 | 5579 days | 32% |
| B Kleven | 10/10 | 5584 days | 32% |
| Ann-Katrine & Sille | 10/10 | 5588 days | 32% |
| Erland Ostberg | 8/10 | 5592 days | 31% |
| Helene Descamps | 9/10 | 5606 days | 32% |
| Heather Deobald | 9/10 | 5608 days | 32% |
| Christina Fischer | 6/10 | 5613 days | 26% |
| Shoe | 10/10 | 5680 days | 32% |
| RobThexton | 10/10 | 5833 days | 32% |
| Martin | 9/10 | 5894 days | 32% |
| cpochin | 10/10 | 5924 days | 32% |
| John Casey | 10/10 | 5936 days | 32% |
| Peter Schmidt | 10/10 | 5955 days | 32% |
| Elisabeth Egerup | 10/10 | 5962 days | 32% |
| Vera Van Schie | 10/10 | 5963 days | 32% |
| Chris Glasg | 10/10 | 5963 days | 32% |
| Klass | 9/10 | 5969 days | 32% |
| Belinda Godhard | 9/10 | 5980 days | 32% |
| Theta | 9/10 | 5983 days | 32% |
| jamesg | 9/10 | 6043 days | 32% |
| Mille Winther | 10/10 | 6056 days | 32% |
| Christine Van Den Berg Michele Imbach | 10/10 | 6068 days | 32% |
| Eilahtan4 | 10/10 | 6106 days | 32% |
| NZDiver | 10/10 | 6167 days | 32% |
| Nikki Turner | 10/10 | 6210 days | 32% |
| Christine Dadd | 8/10 | 6277 days | 31% |
| KatieR | 10/10 | 6287 days | 32% |
| Michael Maddams | 9/10 | 6287 days | 32% |
| Russ C | 8/10 | 6289 days | 31% |
| danam | 10/10 | 6291 days | 32% |
| Katy1 | 9/10 | 6291 days | 32% |
| StefanieGermany | 9/10 | 6307 days | 32% |
| lannie | 9/10 | 6323 days | 32% |
| AbigailB | 10/10 | 6334 days | 32% |
| ReneeA | 10/10 | 6337 days | 32% |
| Ute | 9/10 | 6341 days | 32% |
| Annika | 10/10 | 6354 days | 32% |
| Salick | 9/10 | 6354 days | 32% |
| Thomas | 8/10 | 6360 days | 31% |
| Prentner | 10/10 | 6370 days | 32% |
| Evi | 9/10 | 6395 days | 32% |
| Limor | 8/10 | 6395 days | 31% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 6505 days | 32% |
| Lee Chapman | 10/10 | 6605 days | 32% |
| Jo and Tony | 10/10 | 6681 days | 32% |
| Lara Gema Conde | 5/10 | 6781 days | 22% |
| Trish | 10/10 | 7018 days | 32% |
| Fran | 8/10 | 7019 days | 31% |
| SueLinsk | 10/10 | 7019 days | 32% |
| Rosemary | 9/10 | 7019 days | 32% |
| Martin Christina | 9/10 | 7025 days | 32% |
| Meike | 8/10 | 7052 days | 31% |
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
-2.15% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 118 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 | -2.12% |
| 198 | -2.13% |
| 199 | -2.14% |
| 200 | -2.15% |
| 201 | -2.16% |
| 202 | -2.17% |
| 203 | -2.18% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.04% 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.