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
87.91%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan | 8/10 | 260 days | 100% |
| Adeline | 8/10 | 322 days | 98% |
| Thomas | 8/10 | 322 days | 98% |
| Viktoria | 10/10 | 536 days | 89% |
| Duncan Mitchell | 10/10 | 597 days | 85% |
| jolly | 6/10 | 656 days | 69% |
| Emily | 8/10 | 717 days | 73% |
| Dalton | 10/10 | 778 days | 69% |
| Jorian | 10/10 | 962 days | 50% |
| Gabija Baugirdaite | 10/10 | 962 days | 50% |
| Kate | 10/10 | 991 days | 47% |
| Michael | 9/10 | 1114 days | 35% |
| gazza | 7/10 | 1144 days | 31% |
| Max | 9/10 | 1297 days | 22% |
| Jess Cullen | 8/10 | 1328 days | 20% |
| Julia | 10/10 | 1387 days | 17% |
| Josie | 10/10 | 1479 days | 12% |
| gazza | 5/10 | 1571 days | 7% |
| Vicki | 10/10 | 1632 days | 7% |
| Emer | 9/10 | 1632 days | 7% |
| Rach | 10/10 | 1662 days | 7% |
| Kbee | 10/10 | 1844 days | 5% |
| Amber | 10/10 | 2086 days | 5% |
| Mel | 10/10 | 2117 days | 5% |
| Teesh K | 10/10 | 2148 days | 5% |
| Nadia | 10/10 | 2148 days | 5% |
| Kim | 10/10 | 2148 days | 5% |
| Jo | 10/10 | 2209 days | 4% |
| Jenna | 10/10 | 2239 days | 4% |
| Ian & Wendy | 10/10 | 2452 days | 4% |
| Emma Guthrie | 9/10 | 2514 days | 4% |
| Katie | 8/10 | 2514 days | 4% |
| Martin Hansen | 10/10 | 2575 days | 4% |
| Mystery van | 10/10 | 2667 days | 3% |
| Juleen and Gareth | 10/10 | 2697 days | 3% |
| Emma & Tom | 10/10 | 2758 days | 3% |
| Ceri | 9/10 | 2817 days | 3% |
| Tash & Laura | 8/10 | 2817 days | 3% |
| Doug | 10/10 | 2848 days | 3% |
| Renske | 8/10 | 2848 days | 3% |
| Sally | 10/10 | 2879 days | 3% |
| Jakob Simons | 8/10 | 2909 days | 3% |
| Kenza | 8/10 | 2940 days | 3% |
| Kim | 7/10 | 3001 days | 3% |
| Anna | 7/10 | 3154 days | 2% |
| Alyson Reid | 10/10 | 3192 days | 2% |
| Fedor Bezrukov | 10/10 | 3214 days | 2% |
| Susan Boyton | 8/10 | 3458 days | 2% |
| Kaisu | 9/10 | 3485 days | 2% |
| Brandon | 9/10 | 3508 days | 2% |
| Gruet Titaina | 9/10 | 3656 days | 1% |
| Tatiana Rochereau | 7/10 | 3913 days | 1% |
| Steffen Paul | 9/10 | 4199 days | 0% |
| James Webster | 9/10 | 4227 days | 0% |
| Katherine Britten | 9/10 | 4242 days | 0% |
| Miguel | 7/10 | 4250 days | 0% |
| Kamil Benes | 9/10 | 4284 days | 0% |
| Jiri Blecha | 9/10 | 4284 days | 0% |
| Lisa Quayle | 6/10 | 4327 days | 0% |
| margaret rose | 3/10 | 4401 days | 0% |
| Claudia | 10/10 | 4431 days | 1% |
| Helen Olsson | 10/10 | 4591 days | 1% |
| Igor | 9/10 | 4615 days | 1% |
| Alexis Redor | 4/10 | 4646 days | 0% |
| Jesse Flynn | 10/10 | 4650 days | 1% |
| Ngaire Davies | 2/10 | 4657 days | 0% |
| Paul Davies | 4/10 | 4657 days | 0% |
| Danica Vrsljko | 8/10 | 4672 days | 1% |
| Clodec | 8/10 | 4975 days | 1% |
| Amiot Cyriane | 5/10 | 4984 days | 1% |
| Lea Bulle | 8/10 | 4984 days | 1% |
| Mary Neustroski | 2/10 | 4994 days | 0% |
| Ann Sinclair | 5/10 | 4998 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
1.31% 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.