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 Aoraki / Mt Cook National Park.
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.
Aoraki / Mt Cook National Park
Valid Reviews
67 Valid Reviews
The Aoraki / Mt Cook National Park experience has a total of 69 reviews. There are 67 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 2 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 67 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 28 |
|
42% |
| 9/10 | 21 |
|
31% |
| 8/10 | 8 |
|
12% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
7% |
| 6/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
88.36% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Aoraki / Mt Cook National Park valid reviews is 88.36% and is based on 67 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
61 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 67 valid reviews, the experience has 61 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 61 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 26 |
|
43% |
| 9/10 | 19 |
|
31% |
| 8/10 | 8 |
|
13% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
8% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
89.18% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Aoraki / Mt Cook National Park face-to-face reviews is 89.18% and is based on 61 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
81.16%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allen | 4/10 | 573 days | 38.06 | 100% | |
| Gerry Boobis | 6/10 | 1121 days | 4.11 | 7% | |
| Tobi Guga | 10/10 | 1188 days |  |
4.82 | 9% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 1285 days | |
4.63 | 9% |
| Claire | 10/10 | 1319 days | |
4.56 | 9% |
| Nancy Blindell | 10/10 | 1507 days | 4.19 | 8% | |
| Diego Pablos | 10/10 | 1627 days | |
3.96 | 7% |
| Anssens Weber Florie Brian | 9/10 | 1638 days | 3.94 | 7% | |
| Ixtaso Roncal | 9/10 | 1672 days | 3.87 | 7% | |
| Coralie Ambrosino | 7/10 | 1901 days | |
3.11 | 5% |
| Tarillon Family | 9/10 | 1904 days | |
3.42 | 6% |
| Barthelemy | 9/10 | 1905 days | |
3.41 | 6% |
| David McIntosh | 8/10 | 1949 days | |
3.16 | 5% |
| Dawn Mulligan | 9/10 | 1955 days | |
3.32 | 5% |
| Oliver Andres | 9/10 | 1988 days | |
3.25 | 5% |
| Corinna Fallenbuchel | 10/10 | 1989 days | |
3.25 | 5% |
| Fanny DeBon | 9/10 | 2002 days | |
3.23 | 5% |
| Logan Leduc | 9/10 | 2010 days | |
3.21 | 5% |
| Anna Grafenstein | 8/10 | 2244 days | |
2.61 | 3% |
| Caroline Hennache | 8/10 | 2247 days | |
2.61 | 3% |
| isabel Zander | 10/10 | 2247 days | |
2.75 | 4% |
| Calvin Becker | 10/10 | 2247 days | |
2.75 | 4% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 2249 days | |
2.74 | 4% |
| Julien Joubert-Gaillard | 7/10 | 2251 days | |
2.49 | 3% |
| Marek Heiurich | 10/10 | 2257 days | |
2.73 | 4% |
| Linda Wainman | 9/10 | 2276 days | |
2.69 | 4% |
| Chris Wainman | 9/10 | 2276 days | |
2.69 | 4% |
| Ruud Biemans | 7/10 | 2279 days | |
2.44 | 3% |
| Sarah Christman | 8/10 | 2281 days | |
2.55 | 3% |
| Stina Hultberg | 10/10 | 2283 days | |
2.68 | 3% |
| Sarah | 9/10 | 2287 days | |
2.67 | 3% |
| Guillaume | 6/10 | 2288 days | |
2.21 | 2% |
| Denise Ewbank | 9/10 | 2294 days | |
2.65 | 3% |
| Marius Hoffmann | 8/10 | 2296 days | |
2.52 | 3% |
| Ene Pold | 9/10 | 2301 days | |
2.64 | 3% |
| Henrik Suefke | 10/10 | 2301 days | |
2.64 | 3% |
| G Ballard | 10/10 | 2305 days | |
2.63 | 3% |
| F Ballard | 9/10 | 2305 days | |
2.63 | 3% |
| Glenda | 10/10 | 2307 days | 2.63 | 3% | |
| Timothee Serres | 9/10 | 2309 days | |
2.62 | 3% |
| Wouter Bosch | 7/10 | 2320 days | |
2.37 | 3% |
| Claire Lieval | 9/10 | 2326 days | |
2.59 | 3% |
| Guy David | 10/10 | 2328 days | |
2.59 | 3% |
| Sarah Strong | 10/10 | 2331 days | |
2.58 | 3% |
| Michael Rohn | 10/10 | 2335 days | |
2.57 | 3% |
| Cornelia Stark | 10/10 | 2335 days | |
2.57 | 3% |
| Thomas Roche | 9/10 | 2340 days | |
2.56 | 3% |
| Marc Greeve | 10/10 | 2346 days | |
2.55 | 3% |
| Christin Woelk | 10/10 | 2608 days | |
2.04 | 2% |
| Sven Woelk | 10/10 | 2608 days | |
2.04 | 2% |
| Audrey Ripoche | 7/10 | 2620 days | |
1.83 | 1% |
| Kiki Wykstra | 10/10 | 2632 days | |
1.99 | 2% |
| Raquel | 9/10 | 2651 days | |
1.95 | 2% |
| Enna Keet | 8/10 | 2656 days | |
1.85 | 1% |
| Maxime | 10/10 | 2656 days | |
1.95 | 2% |
| Katharina Littlemann | 10/10 | 2656 days | |
1.95 | 2% |
| Veronica and Jordi | 9/10 | 2663 days | |
1.93 | 1% |
| Fraser Goldsmith | 10/10 | 2668 days | |
1.92 | 1% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 2685 days | |
1.89 | 1% |
| Mathieu Brias | 8/10 | 2690 days | |
1.78 | 1% |
| Natalie Nubler | 3/10 | 2726 days | |
1.39 | 0% |
| Stefan and Brigit and Janek | 10/10 | 2726 days | |
1.81 | 1% |
| Annie | 9/10 | 2727 days | |
1.81 | 1% |
| Jacquemard | 10/10 | 2739 days | |
1.78 | 1% |
| Oliver Kalmbach | 8/10 | 2743 days | |
1.69 | 1% |
| Karsten Meyer | 5/10 | 2749 days | |
1.43 | 0% |
| Kali Lohman | 9/10 | 2750 days | |
1.76 | 1% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Aoraki / Mt Cook National Park does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Final Ranking Score
81%
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.