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
91.62%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barbara McNab | 10/10 | 2850 days | 100% |
| Cherie and Dan | 10/10 | 3190 days | 77% |
| Netta Tyler | 10/10 | 3243 days | 73% |
| Theerada Wongkaew | 10/10 | 3284 days | 71% |
| Gazmira Molina | 8/10 | 3327 days | 66% |
| Jessica Nasstrom | 8/10 | 3334 days | 66% |
| Adeline | 8/10 | 3339 days | 66% |
| Rebecca Pierce | 10/10 | 3366 days | 65% |
| Jane Simmons | 10/10 | 3488 days | 57% |
| Julia Clark | 9/10 | 3555 days | 52% |
| Kristina Breitwieser | 10/10 | 3560 days | 52% |
| Olivier Anciaux | 7/10 | 3573 days | 47% |
| Justine Hoffmann | 9/10 | 3605 days | 48% |
| Ruven Rintelmann | 9/10 | 3610 days | 48% |
| Niels Hoogendooen | 8/10 | 3623 days | 47% |
| Marie Brauherr | 10/10 | 3631 days | 47% |
| Luisa and Hannes | 8/10 | 3635 days | 46% |
| Christian Boudreau | 9/10 | 3653 days | 45% |
| Manuela Opprecht | 7/10 | 3985 days | 21% |
| Damaris Mayer | 3/10 | 3985 days | 11% |
| Sophie Huybrechts | 10/10 | 4027 days | 20% |
| Ally Cook | 9/10 | 4031 days | 20% |
| Jessie Sabine | 9/10 | 4330 days | 0% |
| Katrina Gamby | 10/10 | 4688 days | 31% |
| Sonia Sennane | 10/10 | 5042 days | 31% |
| Melanie Friessen | 9/10 | 5043 days | 31% |
| Barry Baily | 10/10 | 5054 days | 31% |
| Elisabeth | 9/10 | 5063 days | 31% |
| Lotte Foged | 8/10 | 5068 days | 30% |
| Anika | 8/10 | 5069 days | 30% |
| Paul | 8/10 | 5139 days | 30% |
| Elke & Charlotte | 9/10 | 5152 days | 31% |
| Kris Gijbels | 9/10 | 5385 days | 31% |
| Patrick Gloede | 10/10 | 5390 days | 31% |
| Norm and Sky | 9/10 | 5395 days | 31% |
| Roald and Ellen | 9/10 | 5396 days | 31% |
| B Kleven | 10/10 | 5401 days | 31% |
| Ann-Katrine & Sille | 10/10 | 5405 days | 31% |
| Erland Ostberg | 8/10 | 5409 days | 30% |
| Helene Descamps | 9/10 | 5423 days | 31% |
| Heather Deobald | 9/10 | 5425 days | 31% |
| Christina Fischer | 6/10 | 5430 days | 26% |
| Shoe | 10/10 | 5497 days | 31% |
| RobThexton | 10/10 | 5650 days | 31% |
| Martin | 9/10 | 5711 days | 31% |
| cpochin | 10/10 | 5741 days | 31% |
| John Casey | 10/10 | 5753 days | 31% |
| Peter Schmidt | 10/10 | 5772 days | 31% |
| Elisabeth Egerup | 10/10 | 5779 days | 31% |
| Vera Van Schie | 10/10 | 5780 days | 31% |
| Chris Glasg | 10/10 | 5780 days | 31% |
| Klass | 9/10 | 5786 days | 31% |
| Belinda Godhard | 9/10 | 5797 days | 31% |
| Theta | 9/10 | 5800 days | 31% |
| jamesg | 9/10 | 5860 days | 31% |
| Mille Winther | 10/10 | 5873 days | 31% |
| Christine Van Den Berg Michele Imbach | 10/10 | 5885 days | 31% |
| Eilahtan4 | 10/10 | 5923 days | 31% |
| NZDiver | 10/10 | 5984 days | 31% |
| Nikki Turner | 10/10 | 6027 days | 31% |
| Christine Dadd | 8/10 | 6094 days | 30% |
| KatieR | 10/10 | 6104 days | 31% |
| Michael Maddams | 9/10 | 6104 days | 31% |
| Russ C | 8/10 | 6106 days | 30% |
| danam | 10/10 | 6108 days | 31% |
| Katy1 | 9/10 | 6108 days | 31% |
| StefanieGermany | 9/10 | 6124 days | 31% |
| lannie | 9/10 | 6140 days | 31% |
| AbigailB | 10/10 | 6151 days | 31% |
| ReneeA | 10/10 | 6154 days | 31% |
| Ute | 9/10 | 6159 days | 31% |
| Annika | 10/10 | 6171 days | 31% |
| Salick | 9/10 | 6171 days | 31% |
| Thomas | 8/10 | 6178 days | 30% |
| Prentner | 10/10 | 6187 days | 31% |
| Evi | 9/10 | 6212 days | 31% |
| Limor | 8/10 | 6212 days | 30% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 6322 days | 31% |
| Lee Chapman | 10/10 | 6423 days | 31% |
| Jo and Tony | 10/10 | 6498 days | 31% |
| Lara Gema Conde | 5/10 | 6598 days | 23% |
| Trish | 10/10 | 6835 days | 31% |
| Fran | 8/10 | 6836 days | 30% |
| SueLinsk | 10/10 | 6836 days | 31% |
| Rosemary | 9/10 | 6836 days | 31% |
| Martin Christina | 9/10 | 6842 days | 31% |
| Meike | 8/10 | 6869 days | 30% |
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
-4.05% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 42 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 | -3.98% |
| 198 | -4.01% |
| 199 | -4.03% |
| 200 | -4.05% |
| 201 | -4.07% |
| 202 | -4.09% |
| 203 | -4.11% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.36% 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
89%
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.