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
78.62%
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 | 354 days | 63.31 | 100% | |
| Gerry Boobis | 6/10 | 902 days | 9.05 | 12% | |
| Tobi Guga | 10/10 | 969 days |  |
7.52 | 9% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 1066 days | |
5.13 | 5% |
| Claire | 10/10 | 1100 days | |
4.99 | 5% |
| Nancy Blindell | 10/10 | 1287 days | 4.67 | 4% | |
| Diego Pablos | 10/10 | 1408 days | |
4.46 | 4% |
| Anssens Weber Florie Brian | 9/10 | 1419 days | 4.45 | 4% | |
| Ixtaso Roncal | 9/10 | 1453 days | 4.39 | 4% | |
| Coralie Ambrosino | 7/10 | 1682 days | |
3.64 | 3% |
| Tarillon Family | 9/10 | 1685 days | |
3.99 | 3% |
| Barthelemy | 9/10 | 1686 days | |
3.99 | 3% |
| David McIntosh | 8/10 | 1730 days | |
3.72 | 3% |
| Dawn Mulligan | 9/10 | 1736 days | |
3.9 | 3% |
| Oliver Andres | 9/10 | 1769 days | |
3.85 | 3% |
| Corinna Fallenbuchel | 10/10 | 1770 days | |
3.84 | 3% |
| Fanny DeBon | 9/10 | 1783 days | |
3.82 | 3% |
| Logan Leduc | 9/10 | 1791 days | |
3.81 | 3% |
| Anna Grafenstein | 8/10 | 2025 days | |
3.24 | 2% |
| Caroline Hennache | 8/10 | 2028 days | |
3.23 | 2% |
| isabel Zander | 10/10 | 2028 days | |
3.4 | 2% |
| Calvin Becker | 10/10 | 2028 days | |
3.4 | 2% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 2030 days | |
3.4 | 2% |
| Julien Joubert-Gaillard | 7/10 | 2032 days | |
3.09 | 2% |
| Marek Heiurich | 10/10 | 2038 days | |
3.39 | 2% |
| Linda Wainman | 9/10 | 2057 days | |
3.35 | 2% |
| Chris Wainman | 9/10 | 2057 days | |
3.35 | 2% |
| Ruud Biemans | 7/10 | 2060 days | |
3.05 | 2% |
| Sarah Christman | 8/10 | 2062 days | |
3.18 | 2% |
| Stina Hultberg | 10/10 | 2064 days | |
3.34 | 2% |
| Sarah | 9/10 | 2068 days | |
3.33 | 2% |
| Guillaume | 6/10 | 2069 days | |
2.77 | 1% |
| Denise Ewbank | 9/10 | 2075 days | |
3.32 | 2% |
| Marius Hoffmann | 8/10 | 2077 days | |
3.15 | 2% |
| Ene Pold | 9/10 | 2082 days | |
3.31 | 2% |
| Henrik Suefke | 10/10 | 2082 days | |
3.31 | 2% |
| G Ballard | 10/10 | 2086 days | |
3.3 | 2% |
| F Ballard | 9/10 | 2086 days | |
3.3 | 2% |
| Glenda | 10/10 | 2088 days | 3.3 | 2% | |
| Timothee Serres | 9/10 | 2090 days | |
3.3 | 2% |
| Wouter Bosch | 7/10 | 2101 days | |
2.98 | 2% |
| Claire Lieval | 9/10 | 2107 days | |
3.27 | 2% |
| Guy David | 10/10 | 2109 days | |
3.26 | 2% |
| Sarah Strong | 10/10 | 2112 days | |
3.26 | 2% |
| Michael Rohn | 10/10 | 2116 days | |
3.25 | 2% |
| Cornelia Stark | 10/10 | 2116 days | |
3.25 | 2% |
| Thomas Roche | 9/10 | 2121 days | |
3.24 | 2% |
| Marc Greeve | 10/10 | 2127 days | |
3.23 | 2% |
| Christin Woelk | 10/10 | 2389 days | |
2.78 | 1% |
| Sven Woelk | 10/10 | 2389 days | |
2.78 | 1% |
| Audrey Ripoche | 7/10 | 2401 days | |
2.51 | 1% |
| Kiki Wykstra | 10/10 | 2413 days | |
2.74 | 1% |
| Raquel | 9/10 | 2432 days | |
2.71 | 1% |
| Enna Keet | 8/10 | 2437 days | |
2.57 | 1% |
| Maxime | 10/10 | 2437 days | |
2.7 | 1% |
| Katharina Littlemann | 10/10 | 2437 days | |
2.7 | 1% |
| Veronica and Jordi | 9/10 | 2444 days | |
2.69 | 1% |
| Fraser Goldsmith | 10/10 | 2449 days | |
2.68 | 1% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 2466 days | |
2.65 | 1% |
| Mathieu Brias | 8/10 | 2471 days | |
2.51 | 1% |
| Natalie Nubler | 3/10 | 2507 days | |
1.99 | 0% |
| Stefan and Brigit and Janek | 10/10 | 2507 days | |
2.58 | 1% |
| Annie | 9/10 | 2508 days | |
2.58 | 1% |
| Jacquemard | 10/10 | 2520 days | |
2.56 | 1% |
| Oliver Kalmbach | 8/10 | 2524 days | |
2.43 | 1% |
| Karsten Meyer | 5/10 | 2530 days | |
2.06 | 0% |
| Kali Lohman | 9/10 | 2531 days | |
2.54 | 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
79%
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.