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.
Nick Morrison
Rankers owner
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
80.08%
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 | 43 days | 92.73 | 100% | |
| Gerry Boobis | 6/10 | 591 days | 45.25 | 47% | |
| Tobi Guga | 10/10 | 658 days |  |
42.31 | 43% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 755 days | |
27.98 | 27% |
| Claire | 10/10 | 789 days | |
23.81 | 22% |
| Nancy Blindell | 10/10 | 977 days | 7.21 | 4% | |
| Diego Pablos | 10/10 | 1097 days | |
6.0 | 2% |
| Anssens Weber Florie Brian | 9/10 | 1108 days | 4.98 | 1% | |
| Ixtaso Roncal | 9/10 | 1142 days | 4.94 | 1% | |
| Coralie Ambrosino | 7/10 | 1371 days | |
5.55 | 2% |
| Tarillon Family | 9/10 | 1374 days | |
5.54 | 2% |
| Barthelemy | 9/10 | 1375 days | |
5.54 | 2% |
| David McIntosh | 8/10 | 1419 days | |
5.47 | 2% |
| Dawn Mulligan | 9/10 | 1425 days | |
5.46 | 2% |
| Oliver Andres | 9/10 | 1458 days | |
5.4 | 2% |
| Corinna Fallenbuchel | 10/10 | 1459 days | |
5.4 | 2% |
| Fanny DeBon | 9/10 | 1472 days | |
5.38 | 2% |
| Logan Leduc | 9/10 | 1480 days | |
5.37 | 2% |
| Anna Grafenstein | 8/10 | 1714 days | |
4.98 | 1% |
| Caroline Hennache | 8/10 | 1717 days | |
4.98 | 1% |
| isabel Zander | 10/10 | 1717 days | |
4.98 | 1% |
| Calvin Becker | 10/10 | 1717 days | |
4.98 | 1% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 1719 days | |
4.97 | 1% |
| Julien Joubert-Gaillard | 7/10 | 1721 days | |
4.97 | 1% |
| Marek Heiurich | 10/10 | 1727 days | |
4.96 | 1% |
| Linda Wainman | 9/10 | 1746 days | |
4.93 | 1% |
| Chris Wainman | 9/10 | 1746 days | |
4.93 | 1% |
| Ruud Biemans | 7/10 | 1749 days | |
4.92 | 1% |
| Sarah Christman | 8/10 | 1751 days | |
4.92 | 1% |
| Stina Hultberg | 10/10 | 1753 days | |
4.92 | 1% |
| Sarah | 9/10 | 1757 days | |
4.91 | 1% |
| Guillaume | 6/10 | 1758 days | |
4.91 | 1% |
| Denise Ewbank | 9/10 | 1764 days | |
4.9 | 1% |
| Marius Hoffmann | 8/10 | 1766 days | |
4.9 | 1% |
| Ene Pold | 9/10 | 1771 days | |
4.89 | 1% |
| Henrik Suefke | 10/10 | 1771 days | |
4.89 | 1% |
| G Ballard | 10/10 | 1775 days | |
4.88 | 1% |
| F Ballard | 9/10 | 1775 days | |
4.88 | 1% |
| Glenda | 10/10 | 1777 days | 4.07 | 0% | |
| Timothee Serres | 9/10 | 1779 days | |
4.88 | 1% |
| Wouter Bosch | 7/10 | 1790 days | |
4.86 | 1% |
| Claire Lieval | 9/10 | 1796 days | |
4.85 | 1% |
| Guy David | 10/10 | 1798 days | |
4.84 | 1% |
| Sarah Strong | 10/10 | 1801 days | |
4.84 | 1% |
| Michael Rohn | 10/10 | 1805 days | |
4.83 | 1% |
| Cornelia Stark | 10/10 | 1805 days | |
4.83 | 1% |
| Thomas Roche | 9/10 | 1810 days | |
4.82 | 1% |
| Marc Greeve | 10/10 | 1816 days | |
4.81 | 1% |
| Christin Woelk | 10/10 | 2078 days | |
4.38 | 1% |
| Sven Woelk | 10/10 | 2078 days | |
4.38 | 1% |
| Audrey Ripoche | 7/10 | 2090 days | |
4.36 | 1% |
| Kiki Wykstra | 10/10 | 2102 days | |
4.34 | 1% |
| Raquel | 9/10 | 2121 days | |
4.31 | 0% |
| Enna Keet | 8/10 | 2126 days | |
4.31 | 0% |
| Maxime | 10/10 | 2126 days | |
4.31 | 0% |
| Katharina Littlemann | 10/10 | 2126 days | |
4.31 | 0% |
| Veronica and Jordi | 9/10 | 2133 days | |
4.29 | 0% |
| Fraser Goldsmith | 10/10 | 2138 days | |
4.29 | 0% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 2155 days | |
4.26 | 0% |
| Mathieu Brias | 8/10 | 2160 days | |
4.25 | 0% |
| Natalie Nubler | 3/10 | 2196 days | |
3.88 | 0% |
| Stefan and Brigit and Janek | 10/10 | 2196 days | |
4.19 | 0% |
| Annie | 9/10 | 2197 days | |
4.19 | 0% |
| Jacquemard | 10/10 | 2209 days | |
4.17 | 0% |
| Oliver Kalmbach | 8/10 | 2213 days | |
4.16 | 0% |
| Karsten Meyer | 5/10 | 2219 days | |
4.15 | 0% |
| Kali Lohman | 9/10 | 2220 days | |
4.15 | 0% |
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
80%
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.