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 Kina Beach Reserve Camping Ground.
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.
Kina Beach Reserve Camping Ground
Valid Reviews
73 Valid Reviews
The Kina Beach Reserve Camping Ground experience has a total of 74 reviews. There are 73 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 73 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 30 |
|
41% |
| 9/10 | 14 |
|
19% |
| 8/10 | 14 |
|
19% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
7% |
| 6/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 5/10 | 3 |
|
4% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
84.25% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Kina Beach Reserve Camping Ground valid reviews is 84.25% and is based on 73 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
16 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 73 valid reviews, the experience has 16 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 16 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 2 |
|
13% |
| 9/10 | 5 |
|
31% |
| 8/10 | 3 |
|
19% |
| 7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
13% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
13% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
13% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
69.38% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Kina Beach Reserve Camping Ground face-to-face reviews is 69.38% and is based on 16 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
88.03%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan | 8/10 | 220 days | 100% |
| Adeline | 8/10 | 282 days | 98% |
| Thomas | 8/10 | 282 days | 98% |
| Viktoria | 10/10 | 496 days | 90% |
| Duncan Mitchell | 10/10 | 557 days | 86% |
| jolly | 6/10 | 616 days | 71% |
| Emily | 8/10 | 677 days | 76% |
| Dalton | 10/10 | 738 days | 72% |
| Jorian | 10/10 | 922 days | 54% |
| Gabija Baugirdaite | 10/10 | 922 days | 54% |
| Kate | 10/10 | 951 days | 51% |
| Michael | 9/10 | 1074 days | 39% |
| gazza | 7/10 | 1104 days | 34% |
| Max | 9/10 | 1257 days | 24% |
| Jess Cullen | 8/10 | 1288 days | 22% |
| Julia | 10/10 | 1347 days | 19% |
| Josie | 10/10 | 1439 days | 14% |
| gazza | 5/10 | 1531 days | 8% |
| Vicki | 10/10 | 1591 days | 9% |
| Emer | 9/10 | 1592 days | 8% |
| Rach | 10/10 | 1622 days | 8% |
| Kbee | 10/10 | 1804 days | 5% |
| Amber | 10/10 | 2046 days | 5% |
| Mel | 10/10 | 2077 days | 5% |
| Teesh K | 10/10 | 2108 days | 5% |
| Nadia | 10/10 | 2108 days | 5% |
| Kim | 10/10 | 2108 days | 5% |
| Jo | 10/10 | 2169 days | 5% |
| Jenna | 10/10 | 2199 days | 4% |
| Ian & Wendy | 10/10 | 2412 days | 4% |
| Emma Guthrie | 9/10 | 2474 days | 4% |
| Katie | 8/10 | 2474 days | 4% |
| Martin Hansen | 10/10 | 2535 days | 4% |
| Mystery van | 10/10 | 2627 days | 4% |
| Juleen and Gareth | 10/10 | 2657 days | 4% |
| Emma & Tom | 10/10 | 2718 days | 3% |
| Ceri | 9/10 | 2777 days | 3% |
| Tash & Laura | 8/10 | 2777 days | 3% |
| Doug | 10/10 | 2807 days | 3% |
| Renske | 8/10 | 2808 days | 3% |
| Sally | 10/10 | 2839 days | 3% |
| Jakob Simons | 8/10 | 2869 days | 3% |
| Kenza | 8/10 | 2900 days | 3% |
| Kim | 7/10 | 2961 days | 3% |
| Anna | 7/10 | 3114 days | 2% |
| Alyson Reid | 10/10 | 3152 days | 2% |
| Fedor Bezrukov | 10/10 | 3174 days | 2% |
| Susan Boyton | 8/10 | 3417 days | 2% |
| Kaisu | 9/10 | 3445 days | 2% |
| Brandon | 9/10 | 3468 days | 2% |
| Gruet Titaina | 9/10 | 3616 days | 1% |
| Tatiana Rochereau | 7/10 | 3873 days | 1% |
| Steffen Paul | 9/10 | 4159 days | 0% |
| James Webster | 9/10 | 4187 days | 0% |
| Katherine Britten | 9/10 | 4202 days | 0% |
| Miguel | 7/10 | 4209 days | 0% |
| Kamil Benes | 9/10 | 4244 days | 0% |
| Jiri Blecha | 9/10 | 4244 days | 0% |
| Lisa Quayle | 6/10 | 4287 days | 0% |
| margaret rose | 3/10 | 4360 days | 0% |
| Claudia | 10/10 | 4390 days | 1% |
| Helen Olsson | 10/10 | 4551 days | 1% |
| Igor | 9/10 | 4575 days | 1% |
| Alexis Redor | 4/10 | 4606 days | 0% |
| Jesse Flynn | 10/10 | 4610 days | 1% |
| Ngaire Davies | 2/10 | 4617 days | 0% |
| Paul Davies | 4/10 | 4617 days | 0% |
| Danica Vrsljko | 8/10 | 4632 days | 1% |
| Clodec | 8/10 | 4935 days | 1% |
| Amiot Cyriane | 5/10 | 4944 days | 1% |
| Lea Bulle | 8/10 | 4944 days | 1% |
| Mary Neustroski | 2/10 | 4954 days | 0% |
| Ann Sinclair | 5/10 | 4958 days | 1% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Kina Beach Reserve Camping Ground does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
1.29% 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
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.