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
66 Valid Reviews
The Aoraki / Mt Cook National Park experience has a total of 68 reviews. There are 66 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 66 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 28 |
|
42% |
| 9/10 | 21 |
|
32% |
| 8/10 | 8 |
|
12% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
8% |
| 6/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
89.09% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Aoraki / Mt Cook National Park valid reviews is 89.09% 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
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 66 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
88.76%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gerry Boobis | 6/10 | 511 days | 58.62 | 100% | |
| Tobi Guga | 10/10 | 577 days |  |
57.02 | 97% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 674 days | |
39.7 | 65% |
| Claire | 10/10 | 708 days | |
34.48 | 56% |
| Nancy Blindell | 10/10 | 896 days | 11.28 | 13% | |
| Diego Pablos | 10/10 | 1016 days | |
7.19 | 6% |
| Anssens Weber Florie Brian | 9/10 | 1028 days | 5.71 | 3% | |
| Ixtaso Roncal | 9/10 | 1061 days | 5.18 | 2% | |
| Coralie Ambrosino | 7/10 | 1290 days | |
5.68 | 3% |
| Tarillon Family | 9/10 | 1293 days | |
5.67 | 3% |
| Barthelemy | 9/10 | 1294 days | |
5.67 | 3% |
| David McIntosh | 8/10 | 1338 days | |
5.6 | 3% |
| Dawn Mulligan | 9/10 | 1344 days | |
5.59 | 3% |
| Oliver Andres | 9/10 | 1377 days | |
5.54 | 3% |
| Corinna Fallenbuchel | 10/10 | 1378 days | |
5.53 | 3% |
| Fanny DeBon | 9/10 | 1391 days | |
5.51 | 3% |
| Logan Leduc | 9/10 | 1399 days | |
5.5 | 3% |
| Anna Grafenstein | 8/10 | 1633 days | |
5.12 | 2% |
| Caroline Hennache | 8/10 | 1636 days | |
5.11 | 2% |
| isabel Zander | 10/10 | 1636 days | |
5.11 | 2% |
| Calvin Becker | 10/10 | 1636 days | |
5.11 | 2% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 1638 days | |
5.11 | 2% |
| Julien Joubert-Gaillard | 7/10 | 1640 days | |
5.1 | 2% |
| Marek Heiurich | 10/10 | 1646 days | |
5.09 | 2% |
| Linda Wainman | 9/10 | 1665 days | |
5.06 | 2% |
| Chris Wainman | 9/10 | 1665 days | |
5.06 | 2% |
| Ruud Biemans | 7/10 | 1668 days | |
5.06 | 2% |
| Sarah Christman | 8/10 | 1670 days | |
5.05 | 2% |
| Stina Hultberg | 10/10 | 1672 days | |
5.05 | 2% |
| Sarah | 9/10 | 1676 days | |
5.04 | 2% |
| Guillaume | 6/10 | 1677 days | |
5.04 | 2% |
| Denise Ewbank | 9/10 | 1683 days | |
5.03 | 2% |
| Marius Hoffmann | 8/10 | 1685 days | |
5.03 | 2% |
| Ene Pold | 9/10 | 1690 days | |
5.02 | 2% |
| Henrik Suefke | 10/10 | 1690 days | |
5.02 | 2% |
| G Ballard | 10/10 | 1694 days | |
5.02 | 2% |
| F Ballard | 9/10 | 1694 days | |
5.02 | 2% |
| Glenda | 10/10 | 1696 days | 4.18 | 0% | |
| Timothee Serres | 9/10 | 1698 days | |
5.01 | 2% |
| Wouter Bosch | 7/10 | 1709 days | |
4.99 | 2% |
| Claire Lieval | 9/10 | 1715 days | |
4.98 | 2% |
| Guy David | 10/10 | 1717 days | |
4.98 | 2% |
| Sarah Strong | 10/10 | 1720 days | |
4.97 | 2% |
| Michael Rohn | 10/10 | 1724 days | |
4.97 | 2% |
| Cornelia Stark | 10/10 | 1724 days | |
4.97 | 2% |
| Thomas Roche | 9/10 | 1729 days | |
4.96 | 2% |
| Marc Greeve | 10/10 | 1735 days | |
4.95 | 2% |
| Christin Woelk | 10/10 | 1997 days | |
4.52 | 1% |
| Sven Woelk | 10/10 | 1997 days | |
4.52 | 1% |
| Audrey Ripoche | 7/10 | 2009 days | |
4.5 | 1% |
| Kiki Wykstra | 10/10 | 2021 days | |
4.48 | 1% |
| Raquel | 9/10 | 2040 days | |
4.45 | 1% |
| Enna Keet | 8/10 | 2045 days | |
4.44 | 1% |
| Maxime | 10/10 | 2045 days | |
4.44 | 1% |
| Katharina Littlemann | 10/10 | 2045 days | |
4.44 | 1% |
| Veronica and Jordi | 9/10 | 2052 days | |
4.43 | 1% |
| Fraser Goldsmith | 10/10 | 2057 days | |
4.42 | 1% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 2074 days | |
4.39 | 1% |
| Mathieu Brias | 8/10 | 2079 days | |
4.38 | 1% |
| Natalie Nubler | 3/10 | 2115 days | |
4.0 | 0% |
| Stefan and Brigit and Janek | 10/10 | 2115 days | |
4.32 | 1% |
| Annie | 9/10 | 2116 days | |
4.32 | 1% |
| Jacquemard | 10/10 | 2128 days | |
4.3 | 1% |
| Oliver Kalmbach | 8/10 | 2132 days | |
4.3 | 1% |
| Karsten Meyer | 5/10 | 2138 days | |
4.29 | 1% |
| Kali Lohman | 9/10 | 2139 days | |
4.28 | 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
89%
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.