G'day, 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
88.07%
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 | 200 days | 100% |
| Adeline | 8/10 | 262 days | 98% |
| Thomas | 8/10 | 262 days | 98% |
| Viktoria | 10/10 | 476 days | 91% |
| Duncan Mitchell | 10/10 | 537 days | 87% |
| jolly | 6/10 | 596 days | 72% |
| Emily | 8/10 | 657 days | 77% |
| Dalton | 10/10 | 718 days | 74% |
| Jorian | 10/10 | 902 days | 56% |
| Gabija Baugirdaite | 10/10 | 902 days | 56% |
| Kate | 10/10 | 931 days | 53% |
| Michael | 9/10 | 1054 days | 40% |
| gazza | 7/10 | 1084 days | 35% |
| Max | 9/10 | 1237 days | 26% |
| Jess Cullen | 8/10 | 1268 days | 23% |
| Julia | 10/10 | 1327 days | 20% |
| Josie | 10/10 | 1419 days | 15% |
| gazza | 5/10 | 1511 days | 8% |
| Vicki | 10/10 | 1571 days | 9% |
| Emer | 9/10 | 1572 days | 9% |
| Rach | 10/10 | 1602 days | 8% |
| Kbee | 10/10 | 1784 days | 5% |
| Amber | 10/10 | 2026 days | 5% |
| Mel | 10/10 | 2057 days | 5% |
| Teesh K | 10/10 | 2088 days | 5% |
| Nadia | 10/10 | 2088 days | 5% |
| Kim | 10/10 | 2088 days | 5% |
| Jo | 10/10 | 2149 days | 5% |
| Jenna | 10/10 | 2179 days | 4% |
| Ian & Wendy | 10/10 | 2392 days | 4% |
| Emma Guthrie | 9/10 | 2454 days | 4% |
| Katie | 8/10 | 2454 days | 4% |
| Martin Hansen | 10/10 | 2515 days | 4% |
| Mystery van | 10/10 | 2607 days | 4% |
| Juleen and Gareth | 10/10 | 2637 days | 4% |
| Emma & Tom | 10/10 | 2698 days | 3% |
| Ceri | 9/10 | 2757 days | 3% |
| Tash & Laura | 8/10 | 2757 days | 3% |
| Doug | 10/10 | 2787 days | 3% |
| Renske | 8/10 | 2788 days | 3% |
| Sally | 10/10 | 2819 days | 3% |
| Jakob Simons | 8/10 | 2849 days | 3% |
| Kenza | 8/10 | 2880 days | 3% |
| Kim | 7/10 | 2941 days | 3% |
| Anna | 7/10 | 3094 days | 2% |
| Alyson Reid | 10/10 | 3132 days | 3% |
| Fedor Bezrukov | 10/10 | 3154 days | 2% |
| Susan Boyton | 8/10 | 3397 days | 2% |
| Kaisu | 9/10 | 3425 days | 2% |
| Brandon | 9/10 | 3448 days | 2% |
| Gruet Titaina | 9/10 | 3596 days | 1% |
| Tatiana Rochereau | 7/10 | 3853 days | 1% |
| Steffen Paul | 9/10 | 4139 days | 0% |
| James Webster | 9/10 | 4167 days | 0% |
| Katherine Britten | 9/10 | 4182 days | 0% |
| Miguel | 7/10 | 4189 days | 0% |
| Kamil Benes | 9/10 | 4224 days | 0% |
| Jiri Blecha | 9/10 | 4224 days | 0% |
| Lisa Quayle | 6/10 | 4267 days | 0% |
| margaret rose | 3/10 | 4340 days | 0% |
| Claudia | 10/10 | 4370 days | 0% |
| Helen Olsson | 10/10 | 4531 days | 1% |
| Igor | 9/10 | 4555 days | 1% |
| Alexis Redor | 4/10 | 4586 days | 0% |
| Jesse Flynn | 10/10 | 4590 days | 1% |
| Ngaire Davies | 2/10 | 4597 days | 0% |
| Paul Davies | 4/10 | 4597 days | 0% |
| Danica Vrsljko | 8/10 | 4612 days | 1% |
| Clodec | 8/10 | 4915 days | 1% |
| Amiot Cyriane | 5/10 | 4924 days | 1% |
| Lea Bulle | 8/10 | 4924 days | 1% |
| Mary Neustroski | 2/10 | 4934 days | 0% |
| Ann Sinclair | 5/10 | 4938 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
1.28% 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.