Kia ora, 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 Picton isite Visitor Information Centre.
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.
Picton isite Visitor Information Centre
Valid Reviews
68 Valid Reviews
The Picton isite Visitor Information Centre experience has a total of 68 valid reviews. There are no 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 68 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 15 |
|
22% |
| 9/10 | 14 |
|
21% |
| 8/10 | 17 |
|
25% |
| 7/10 | 7 |
|
10% |
| 6/10 | 6 |
|
9% |
| 5/10 | 3 |
|
4% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
77.79% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Picton isite Visitor Information Centre valid reviews is 77.79% and is based on 68 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
64 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 68 valid reviews, the experience has 64 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 64 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 14 |
|
22% |
| 9/10 | 14 |
|
22% |
| 8/10 | 17 |
|
27% |
| 7/10 | 7 |
|
11% |
| 6/10 | 6 |
|
9% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 3/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
79.53% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Picton isite Visitor Information Centre face-to-face reviews is 79.53% and is based on 64 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
59.75%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| L Brown | 1/10 | 1047 days | 100% |
| Jean | 10/10 | 2508 days | 23% |
| Sebastian Heinzelmann | 10/10 | 3562 days | 10% |
| Ahmed Mohsen Aly | 5/10 | 3695 days | 6% |
| Stuart Cook | 9/10 | 3930 days | 5% |
| Nina Müller | 7/10 | 3956 days | 5% |
| Leonie Jennings | 8/10 | 3974 days | 5% |
| Marie Weber | 9/10 | 3975 days | 5% |
| Damaris Mayer | 6/10 | 3980 days | 4% |
| Jamie McArthur | 8/10 | 3991 days | 5% |
| Bart Hanssen | 6/10 | 4009 days | 4% |
| Jutta Bernhart | 9/10 | 4023 days | 4% |
| Nils Demattio | 10/10 | 4027 days | 4% |
| Jan-Peter Stripp | 8/10 | 4274 days | 1% |
| Paula Renton | 6/10 | 4282 days | 1% |
| Adriana | 4/10 | 4283 days | 1% |
| Becky | 8/10 | 4284 days | 1% |
| Alex | 10/10 | 4284 days | 1% |
| Romina De Hill | 10/10 | 4304 days | 1% |
| Tom Hill | 8/10 | 4304 days | 1% |
| Granjon | 8/10 | 4307 days | 1% |
| Steffen | 8/10 | 4309 days | 1% |
| Sergey Pronkin | 7/10 | 4309 days | 1% |
| Nina Helmling | 6/10 | 4309 days | 1% |
| Katja Kraffzik | 10/10 | 4310 days | 1% |
| Vera Kreipe | 10/10 | 4311 days | 1% |
| Maria = Moller Hansen | 10/10 | 4317 days | 1% |
| Steven Lotrian | 7/10 | 4320 days | 1% |
| Kristyna | 9/10 | 4322 days | 1% |
| Sophia | 6/10 | 4323 days | 1% |
| Klaus Petersen | 7/10 | 4324 days | 1% |
| Anna Guzewiez | 9/10 | 4325 days | 1% |
| Marc Engstle | 6/10 | 4328 days | 0% |
| Leeann Newton | 9/10 | 4332 days | 1% |
| GN100 | 8/10 | 4332 days | 1% |
| Verena | 8/10 | 4333 days | 1% |
| Benjamin | 8/10 | 4333 days | 1% |
| Jan Pekarek | 10/10 | 4352 days | 0% |
| Lenka Dvorauova | 9/10 | 4352 days | 0% |
| Johanna Bak | 10/10 | 4353 days | 0% |
| Greg Fischer | 10/10 | 4363 days | 0% |
| Chen Levin | 5/10 | 4363 days | 0% |
| jonas meier | 8/10 | 4370 days | 0% |
| Anja | 9/10 | 4372 days | 0% |
| Peter elsleysams | 8/10 | 4372 days | 0% |
| Paul Balfour | 7/10 | 4375 days | 0% |
| Anton Thisted | 8/10 | 4638 days | 6% |
| Josefine Sjodin | 8/10 | 4638 days | 6% |
| Lorraine Doyle | 3/10 | 4657 days | 3% |
| Soizic | 9/10 | 4657 days | 6% |
| Sean Hurley | 2/10 | 4657 days | 3% |
| Sarah Horn | 8/10 | 4659 days | 6% |
| Sebastian Russell-Smits | 9/10 | 4659 days | 6% |
| Gale Willcocks | 9/10 | 4664 days | 6% |
| Glenn Surzur | 8/10 | 4667 days | 6% |
| Will and Taylor | 4/10 | 4671 days | 4% |
| Marketa | 9/10 | 4671 days | 6% |
| Sebastian | 10/10 | 4675 days | 6% |
| Sanchez | 7/10 | 4683 days | 6% |
| Michal Maly | 10/10 | 4697 days | 6% |
| Tanja and Pascal | 3/10 | 4701 days | 3% |
| Sue Kieseker | 9/10 | 4746 days | 6% |
| Sandra and Thomas | 10/10 | 4749 days | 6% |
| Roux | 5/10 | 4751 days | 5% |
| Jackie and Brian | 8/10 | 4753 days | 6% |
| Fahl | 9/10 | 4760 days | 6% |
| Lisa Blake | 7/10 | 4777 days | 6% |
| Megan Child | 10/10 | 4778 days | 6% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Picton isite Visitor Information Centre does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
14.20% 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
74%
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.