Hi, 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 Dolphin Eco Cruise.
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.
Dolphin Eco Cruise
Valid Reviews
91 Valid Reviews
The Dolphin Eco Cruise experience has a total of 93 reviews. There are 91 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 91 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 15 |
|
16% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
29% |
| 8/10 | 25 |
|
27% |
| 7/10 | 12 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 4 |
|
4% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 4/10 | 4 |
|
4% |
| 3/10 | 3 |
|
3% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
79.89% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Dolphin Eco Cruise valid reviews is 79.89% and is based on 91 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
80 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 91 valid reviews, the experience has 80 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 80 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 12 |
|
15% |
| 9/10 | 25 |
|
31% |
| 8/10 | 24 |
|
30% |
| 7/10 | 10 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 3 |
|
4% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 4 |
|
5% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
81.13% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Dolphin Eco Cruise face-to-face reviews is 81.13% and is based on 80 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
81.56%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nadja Guiliani | 4/10 | 3706 days | 44% |
| Ben Blackwell | 8/10 | 3720 days | 100% |
| mathieu boustie | 5/10 | 3817 days | 41% |
| Mattias | 7/10 | 4428 days | 54% |
| Arnaud Memay | 7/10 | 4509 days | 54% |
| Susser | 8/10 | 4509 days | 60% |
| Samuel Fritscher | 9/10 | 4817 days | 62% |
| Fabian and Teresa | 10/10 | 4843 days | 63% |
| Joroen Borkert | 7/10 | 4899 days | 54% |
| Faassen | 8/10 | 4920 days | 60% |
| Ben Simons | 9/10 | 5183 days | 62% |
| Martin Beuker | 4/10 | 5193 days | 15% |
| Romla | 8/10 | 5194 days | 60% |
| Marie Dutron | 8/10 | 5197 days | 60% |
| Preben vil Helmsen | 10/10 | 5199 days | 63% |
| Rick & Suus | 8/10 | 5200 days | 60% |
| Nora | 9/10 | 5200 days | 62% |
| Barry Baily | 9/10 | 5200 days | 62% |
| Christiane & Dirk | 8/10 | 5201 days | 60% |
| Scott Simpson | 5/10 | 5204 days | 30% |
| Wolfgang Beute | 8/10 | 5204 days | 60% |
| batzi | 3/10 | 5308 days | 0% |
| bow | 3/10 | 5461 days | 0% |
| Nick van de Belt | 9/10 | 5530 days | 62% |
| Patrick Gloede | 9/10 | 5536 days | 62% |
| Stoop | 9/10 | 5539 days | 62% |
| Siegfried Tuiel | 10/10 | 5542 days | 63% |
| Laura Leigh | 6/10 | 5546 days | 44% |
| John Taylor | 7/10 | 5552 days | 54% |
| Jon_and_Family | 7/10 | 5553 days | 54% |
| Marjan Van Den Braak | 4/10 | 5554 days | 15% |
| Wouter Teensma | 8/10 | 5557 days | 60% |
| Ann Parry | 10/10 | 5557 days | 63% |
| Rob | 8/10 | 5568 days | 60% |
| Alan & Gill Geach | 7/10 | 5575 days | 54% |
| Sarah Ewing | 9/10 | 5578 days | 62% |
| John N | 8/10 | 5912 days | 60% |
| Elisabeth Egerup | 10/10 | 5925 days | 63% |
| Wielink | 8/10 | 5926 days | 60% |
| Pierre Pilon | 9/10 | 5926 days | 62% |
| Pascal Auber | 8/10 | 5932 days | 60% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 5945 days | 62% |
| Tonny | 8/10 | 5945 days | 60% |
| Dawn Campbell | 10/10 | 5977 days | 63% |
| guichard | 7/10 | 5997 days | 54% |
| HairyHaggis | 10/10 | 6008 days | 63% |
| katepat | 10/10 | 6008 days | 63% |
| Colin S | 10/10 | 6016 days | 63% |
| Ulyate | 6/10 | 6019 days | 44% |
| Alex D'Souza | 7/10 | 6069 days | 54% |
| Patrick | 9/10 | 6099 days | 62% |
| billdee | 10/10 | 6130 days | 63% |
| EvertG | 8/10 | 6233 days | 60% |
| KatrinK | 10/10 | 6245 days | 63% |
| David | 8/10 | 6252 days | 60% |
| neeltjec | 9/10 | 6252 days | 62% |
| monikav | 10/10 | 6252 days | 63% |
| Martien van Brakel | 9/10 | 6252 days | 62% |
| kymberlyw | 9/10 | 6254 days | 62% |
| Katy1 | 8/10 | 6254 days | 60% |
| Anneleen | 8/10 | 6283 days | 60% |
| RosC | 6/10 | 6287 days | 44% |
| Simon | 9/10 | 6301 days | 62% |
| Gunhild | 9/10 | 6317 days | 62% |
| Lars | 10/10 | 6319 days | 63% |
| Miha | 7/10 | 6357 days | 54% |
| Ana | 7/10 | 6365 days | 54% |
| Cindy | 9/10 | 6365 days | 62% |
| Mark | 9/10 | 6383 days | 62% |
| Stephanie Schikora | 10/10 | 6395 days | 63% |
| Rhys Howell | 6/10 | 6586 days | 44% |
| Ben | 9/10 | 6623 days | 62% |
| Vikki | 10/10 | 6628 days | 63% |
| Kelly Noirin | 8/10 | 6639 days | 60% |
| Ohad | 9/10 | 6645 days | 62% |
| Trinkler | 9/10 | 6645 days | 62% |
| Nancy Dol | 9/10 | 6649 days | 62% |
| George Clark | 7/10 | 6649 days | 54% |
| Kathy Hawey | 8/10 | 6651 days | 60% |
| Myrtille de Vries | 9/10 | 6656 days | 62% |
| Buys | 9/10 | 6657 days | 62% |
| Haemnerli | 8/10 | 6657 days | 60% |
| Vaclaf | 9/10 | 6663 days | 62% |
| Jenny Hulsebosch | 9/10 | 6680 days | 62% |
| Willemien | 8/10 | 6744 days | 60% |
| Vern | 7/10 | 6854 days | 54% |
| James | 8/10 | 6854 days | 60% |
| Rietveld | 8/10 | 7010 days | 60% |
| Janne | 8/10 | 7022 days | 60% |
| Nina | 3/10 | 7024 days | 0% |
| Inga | 4/10 | 7024 days | 15% |
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 Dolphin Eco Cruise experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-2.82% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 90 days. However the Dolphin Eco Cruise 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 Dolphin Eco Cruise experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -2.78% |
| 198 | -2.80% |
| 199 | -2.81% |
| 200 | -2.82% |
| 201 | -2.84% |
| 202 | -2.85% |
| 203 | -2.87% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
3.37% 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
82%
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.