Ranking Score Explained
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 Lake Wanaka i-SITE 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.
Lake Wanaka i-SITE Visitor Information Centre
Valid Reviews
66 Valid Reviews
The Lake Wanaka i-SITE Visitor Information Centre experience has a total of 67 reviews. There are 66 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 66 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 21 |
|
32% |
| 9/10 | 14 |
|
21% |
| 8/10 | 15 |
|
23% |
| 7/10 | 8 |
|
12% |
| 6/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
82.88% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Lake Wanaka i-SITE Visitor Information Centre valid reviews is 82.88% and is based on 66 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
63 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 66 valid reviews, the experience has 63 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 63 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 19 |
|
30% |
| 9/10 | 14 |
|
22% |
| 8/10 | 14 |
|
22% |
| 7/10 | 8 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
82.38% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Lake Wanaka i-SITE Visitor Information Centre face-to-face reviews is 82.38% and is based on 63 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
86.19%
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 | Face-to-Face | Weight | Relative Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Weslake | 10/10 | 472 days | 64.7 | 100% | |
| Ixtaso Roncal | 8/10 | 1326 days | 4.68 | 2% | |
| Christop Grepper | 9/10 | 1555 days |  |
5.24 | 3% |
| Regula Hammer | 9/10 | 1555 days | |
5.24 | 3% |
| Charles Aubry | 10/10 | 1590 days | |
5.19 | 3% |
| Elisa Felising | 8/10 | 1592 days | |
5.18 | 3% |
| Barbara | 10/10 | 1641 days | |
5.1 | 3% |
| Hubert Schmid | 10/10 | 1712 days | |
4.99 | 2% |
| Ane Didriksen | 8/10 | 1899 days | |
4.68 | 2% |
| Iris Anette Berger | 7/10 | 1899 days | |
4.68 | 2% |
| Douglas Yeates | 7/10 | 1899 days | |
4.68 | 2% |
| Stefanie | 7/10 | 1901 days | |
4.68 | 2% |
| Martin Sajdok | 10/10 | 1904 days | |
4.67 | 2% |
| Claudia Hillebrand | 8/10 | 1906 days | |
4.67 | 2% |
| Mark | 8/10 | 1915 days | |
4.65 | 2% |
| Petra Albrchtoval | 6/10 | 1925 days | |
4.64 | 2% |
| Helene Andersen | 9/10 | 1928 days | |
4.63 | 2% |
| Claudia Bauch | 10/10 | 1931 days | |
4.63 | 2% |
| Daniel Robledo | 9/10 | 1934 days | |
4.62 | 2% |
| Maria Camen Santos Lopez | 10/10 | 1934 days | |
4.62 | 2% |
| Joris Giullemot | 10/10 | 1935 days | |
4.62 | 2% |
| Mara | 8/10 | 1935 days | |
4.62 | 2% |
| Olivier Carval | 7/10 | 1935 days | |
4.62 | 2% |
| Bex Hyland | 9/10 | 1942 days | |
4.61 | 2% |
| Mirjam Betschart | 8/10 | 1947 days | |
4.6 | 2% |
| Manuela Michelbach | 6/10 | 1950 days | |
4.59 | 2% |
| Lopez Anandine | 8/10 | 1950 days | |
4.59 | 2% |
| Sybille Willenbrock | 9/10 | 1955 days | |
4.59 | 2% |
| F Ballard | 9/10 | 1959 days | |
4.58 | 2% |
| Christina Habranke | 10/10 | 1973 days | |
4.56 | 2% |
| Wouter Bosch | 10/10 | 1974 days | |
4.56 | 2% |
| Derek Knight | 10/10 | 1975 days | |
4.55 | 2% |
| Julia Kallenbach | 10/10 | 1978 days | |
4.55 | 2% |
| Gilad Itzkovitz | 10/10 | 1981 days | |
4.54 | 2% |
| Doran Swartz | 8/10 | 1982 days | |
4.54 | 2% |
| Hindrek Lind | 5/10 | 1984 days | |
4.54 | 2% |
| Anne and Steve Bartlett | 9/10 | 1984 days | |
4.54 | 2% |
| Danyelle Miller | 8/10 | 1984 days | |
4.54 | 2% |
| Susser | 9/10 | 1985 days | |
4.54 | 2% |
| Elly Zimmer | 2/10 | 1999 days | |
4.06 | 1% |
| Paige Galbraith | 7/10 | 2000 days | |
4.51 | 2% |
| hendrik king | 10/10 | 2206 days | 3.48 | 0% | |
| Michael Heuer | 10/10 | 2275 days | |
4.06 | 1% |
| Supiot Zudovic | 10/10 | 2280 days | |
4.05 | 1% |
| Maria Klister | 5/10 | 2282 days | |
4.05 | 1% |
| Bettina Fluhrer | 8/10 | 2283 days | |
4.05 | 1% |
| Marie | 8/10 | 2283 days | |
4.05 | 1% |
| Tom Somers | 9/10 | 2284 days | |
4.05 | 1% |
| Galen Licht | 7/10 | 2286 days | |
4.04 | 1% |
| Lea Scheuvens | 9/10 | 2288 days | |
4.04 | 1% |
| Petra Blumberg | 10/10 | 2304 days | |
4.01 | 1% |
| Enna Keet | 8/10 | 2310 days | |
4.0 | 1% |
| Tim Sautter | 10/10 | 2311 days | |
4.0 | 1% |
| Peter Moederer | 10/10 | 2315 days | |
3.99 | 1% |
| Fabian and Teresa | 3/10 | 2319 days | |
3.69 | 0% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 7/10 | 2373 days | |
3.9 | 1% |
| Martyn Kool | 9/10 | 2374 days | |
3.9 | 1% |
| Marieke | 7/10 | 2374 days | |
3.9 | 1% |
| Al Stuart | 10/10 | 2375 days | |
3.9 | 1% |
| Sharon Yates | 10/10 | 2376 days | |
3.89 | 1% |
| Jonathan Vondette | 9/10 | 2379 days | |
3.89 | 1% |
| Natalie Nubler | 4/10 | 2380 days | |
3.66 | 0% |
| Benedicte and Mathilde Colas | 8/10 | 2391 days | |
3.87 | 1% |
| Alex Laidlaw | 8/10 | 2395 days | |
3.86 | 1% |
| Ton Franke | 4/10 | 2404 days | |
3.62 | 0% |
| Marjo Cousijn | 9/10 | 2405 days | |
3.85 | 1% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Lake Wanaka i-SITE Visitor Information Centre does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Final Ranking Score
86%
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 info@rankers.co.nz.