Hi there, 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 The Pines.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at firstname.lastname@example.org. We don't believe this is perfect or complete so we're always interested in ways we might make improvements.
138 Valid Reviews
The The Pines experience has a total of 144 reviews. There are 138 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 6 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 138 valid reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the The Pines valid reviews is 95.51% and is based on 138 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
15 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.
Within the 138 valid reviews, the experience has 15 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 15 face-to-face reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the The Pines face-to-face reviews is 97.33% and is based on 15 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
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.
|Robert Killey||7/10||57 days||90.53||90%|
|Tanja Rombey||10/10||57 days||99.49||100%|
|Luis Vigil Vidal||10/10||87 days||98.8||99%|
|Corryn Smith||10/10||87 days||98.8||99%|
|Forrest Poirier||10/10||87 days||98.8||99%|
|Javier Williams||10/10||87 days||98.8||99%|
|Chieco Family||9/10||118 days||97.79||98%|
|Steve Mac||10/10||118 days||97.79||98%|
|Marta Jau||9/10||147 days||96.58||97%|
|Andrew Hammond||10/10||148 days||96.53||97%|
|Keith & Kay Finlayson||10/10||179 days||94.92||95%|
|Patrizia Tosetti||10/10||301 days||85.64||86%|
|Wazza Schulz||3/10||332 days||63.55||63%|
|Marcus Andrade||10/10||391 days||75.77||76%|
|laura hatton||10/10||391 days||75.77||76%|
|Paula G||8/10||422 days||68.19||68%|
|TT Tang||9/10||483 days||63.03||63%|
|Eddy P||10/10||513 days||58.3||58%|
|Claire Desat||10/10||513 days||58.3||58%|
|Margaret Kajewski||10/10||513 days||58.3||58%|
|Jenna webber||10/10||513 days||58.3||58%|
|Holly Bartholomew||10/10||513 days||58.3||58%|
|J wells||10/10||513 days||58.3||58%|
|Tristan & Jolie||10/10||697 days||30.1||29%|
|Jill Grimwood||10/10||717 days||27.64||27%|
|Jill McGrath||9/10||720 days||27.28||26%|
|Niall McGrath||10/10||727 days||26.46||25%|
|Nick Cartmell||10/10||730 days||26.11||25%|
|Robert Webster||10/10||734 days||25.65||25%|
|Luis Vigil Vidal||9/10||739 days||25.08||24%|
|Tina I||10/10||787 days||20.03||19%|
|Maggie Konstanski||9/10||788 days||19.93||19%|
|Paul and Paula||8/10||792 days||18.57||17%|
|Joe Trigg||9/10||835 days||15.71||14%|
|Phil and Mel Rowson||9/10||836 days||15.63||14%|
|Gary Prescot||10/10||850 days||14.51||13%|
|Tom Sanft||9/10||981 days||7.06||6%|
|Cathy Mead||10/10||1054 days||5.27||4%|
|Nikolaj Lambertsen||10/10||1059 days||5.21||4%|
|deborah cooper||8/10||1061 days||4.92||4%|
|Niels Petit||10/10||1079 days||5.04||4%|
|Craig Eagleton||10/10||1095 days||5.0||4%|
|Florence Boinay||10/10||1096 days||5.0||4%|
|Breanna Alexander||10/10||1110 days||4.97||4%|
|Trent O'Keeffe||10/10||1111 days||4.97||4%|
|Peter Brock||10/10||1114 days||4.96||4%|
|sara hoeflaken||10/10||1118 days||4.95||4%|
|Erich Brueggermann||9/10||1119 days||4.95||4%|
|The Beans||10/10||1180 days||4.83||3%|
|Richard Houghton||10/10||1181 days||4.83||3%|
|Jude Ong||10/10||1181 days||4.83||3%|
|Alf Caruana||8/10||1182 days||4.59||3%|
|Olivia Swisher||10/10||1198 days||4.8||3%|
|Dylan McBride||10/10||1198 days||4.8||3%|
|Anna Dalby||10/10||1199 days||4.8||3%|
|Theo Mallais||10/10||1203 days||4.79||3%|
|Derek Drost||8/10||1217 days||4.52||3%|
|Kevin Mayer||10/10||1273 days||4.65||3%|
|Rita Ashby||6/10||1334 days||3.76||2%|
|Pamela Hoffman||10/10||1388 days||4.43||3%|
|Justin Caldwell||10/10||1411 days||4.38||3%|
|Dennis Page||10/10||1426 days||4.35||3%|
|Gilles Andrieu||8/10||1437 days||4.11||3%|
|Antonio BENITEZ||10/10||1486 days||4.23||3%|
|Richard Kirby||10/10||1517 days||4.17||3%|
|Renee Willhuber||10/10||1521 days||4.17||3%|
|Antoine Germaine||9/10||1533 days||4.14||3%|
|Kaseylee Hibbert||10/10||1552 days||4.11||3%|
|Karmen Bond||10/10||1576 days||4.06||3%|
|Steve Warren||10/10||1578 days||4.05||3%|
|Mitchell Henderson||8/10||1638 days||3.74||2%|
|Ian Gilbert||10/10||1700 days||3.82||2%|
|Oliver Pester||10/10||1792 days||3.64||2%|
|Andrew Jones||10/10||1792 days||3.64||2%|
|Mike Merrick||9/10||1800 days||3.62||2%|
|Averil Brown||10/10||1818 days||3.59||2%|
|Nell Hearle||10/10||1828 days||3.57||2%|
|Patrick Schwerhoff||10/10||1845 days||3.53||2%|
|Manolis Pavlakis||10/10||1851 days||3.52||2%|
|Ron Clarke||10/10||1882 days||3.46||2%|
|Alexandre Moleiro||10/10||1882 days||3.46||2%|
|John Scott||10/10||1893 days||3.44||2%|
|Kane F||10/10||1973 days||3.28||2%|
|Scott Atkinson||10/10||2036 days||3.16||2%|
|Andrew Kermode||10/10||2036 days||3.16||2%|
|Tom Guthknecht||9/10||2121 days||2.99||2%|
|Matt Weston||10/10||2141 days||2.95||2%|
|tracey aylmer||9/10||2158 days||2.92||2%|
|Julian Kemp||9/10||2278 days||2.68||1%|
|Karen Perry||10/10||2339 days||2.57||1%|
|Fernando Martin||9/10||2530 days||2.19||1%|
|Tinne Cis||10/10||2885 days||1.5||0%|
|Chris Marsh||10/10||2914 days||1.44||0%|
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. The Pines does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
The final ranking score once rounding has been applied. This value is cached and recalculated each day. Therefore it may not be precisely accurate based on the other values presented.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at email@example.com.