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 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
56.82%
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 | 725 days | 100% |
| Jean | 10/10 | 2186 days | 15% |
| Sebastian Heinzelmann | 10/10 | 3240 days | 8% |
| Ahmed Mohsen Aly | 5/10 | 3373 days | 5% |
| Stuart Cook | 9/10 | 3608 days | 5% |
| Nina Müller | 7/10 | 3634 days | 5% |
| Leonie Jennings | 8/10 | 3652 days | 5% |
| Marie Weber | 9/10 | 3653 days | 5% |
| Damaris Mayer | 6/10 | 3658 days | 4% |
| Jamie McArthur | 8/10 | 3669 days | 5% |
| Bart Hanssen | 6/10 | 3687 days | 4% |
| Jutta Bernhart | 9/10 | 3701 days | 5% |
| Nils Demattio | 10/10 | 3705 days | 5% |
| Jan-Peter Stripp | 8/10 | 3952 days | 3% |
| Paula Renton | 6/10 | 3960 days | 2% |
| Adriana | 4/10 | 3961 days | 2% |
| Becky | 8/10 | 3962 days | 3% |
| Alex | 10/10 | 3962 days | 3% |
| Romina De Hill | 10/10 | 3982 days | 3% |
| Tom Hill | 8/10 | 3982 days | 3% |
| Granjon | 8/10 | 3985 days | 3% |
| Steffen | 8/10 | 3987 days | 3% |
| Sergey Pronkin | 7/10 | 3987 days | 3% |
| Nina Helmling | 6/10 | 3987 days | 2% |
| Katja Kraffzik | 10/10 | 3988 days | 3% |
| Vera Kreipe | 10/10 | 3989 days | 3% |
| Maria = Moller Hansen | 10/10 | 3995 days | 3% |
| Steven Lotrian | 7/10 | 3998 days | 2% |
| Kristyna | 9/10 | 4000 days | 3% |
| Sophia | 6/10 | 4001 days | 2% |
| Klaus Petersen | 7/10 | 4002 days | 2% |
| Anna Guzewiez | 9/10 | 4003 days | 3% |
| Marc Engstle | 6/10 | 4006 days | 2% |
| Leeann Newton | 9/10 | 4010 days | 3% |
| GN100 | 8/10 | 4010 days | 2% |
| Verena | 8/10 | 4011 days | 2% |
| Benjamin | 8/10 | 4011 days | 2% |
| Jan Pekarek | 10/10 | 4030 days | 2% |
| Lenka Dvorauova | 9/10 | 4030 days | 2% |
| Johanna Bak | 10/10 | 4031 days | 2% |
| Greg Fischer | 10/10 | 4041 days | 2% |
| Chen Levin | 5/10 | 4041 days | 2% |
| jonas meier | 8/10 | 4048 days | 2% |
| Anja | 9/10 | 4050 days | 2% |
| Peter elsleysams | 8/10 | 4050 days | 2% |
| Paul Balfour | 7/10 | 4053 days | 2% |
| Anton Thisted | 8/10 | 4316 days | 0% |
| Josefine Sjodin | 8/10 | 4316 days | 0% |
| Lorraine Doyle | 3/10 | 4335 days | 0% |
| Soizic | 9/10 | 4335 days | 0% |
| Sean Hurley | 2/10 | 4335 days | 0% |
| Sarah Horn | 8/10 | 4337 days | 0% |
| Sebastian Russell-Smits | 9/10 | 4337 days | 0% |
| Gale Willcocks | 9/10 | 4342 days | 0% |
| Glenn Surzur | 8/10 | 4345 days | 0% |
| Will and Taylor | 4/10 | 4349 days | 0% |
| Marketa | 9/10 | 4349 days | 0% |
| Sebastian | 10/10 | 4353 days | 0% |
| Sanchez | 7/10 | 4361 days | 0% |
| Michal Maly | 10/10 | 4375 days | 0% |
| Tanja and Pascal | 3/10 | 4379 days | 0% |
| Sue Kieseker | 9/10 | 4424 days | 3% |
| Sandra and Thomas | 10/10 | 4427 days | 4% |
| Roux | 5/10 | 4429 days | 3% |
| Jackie and Brian | 8/10 | 4431 days | 3% |
| Fahl | 9/10 | 4438 days | 3% |
| Lisa Blake | 7/10 | 4455 days | 3% |
| Megan Child | 10/10 | 4456 days | 4% |
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
16.54% 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
73%
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.