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 Fiordland National Park.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at email@example.com. We don't believe this is perfect or complete so we're always interested in ways we might make improvements.
50 Valid Reviews
The Fiordland National Park experience has a total of 51 reviews. There are 50 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 50 valid reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the Fiordland National Park valid reviews is 89.60% and is based on 50 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
50 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.
Within the 50 valid reviews, the experience has 50 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 50 face-to-face reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the Fiordland National Park face-to-face reviews is 89.60% and is based on 50 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
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.
|Danica Vrsaljko||7/10||1623 days||3.82||83%|
|Markus Johannes||7/10||1623 days||3.82||83%|
|Coralie Ambrosino||8/10||1624 days||3.99||95%|
|Rebecca Wharton||8/10||1652 days||3.94||92%|
|Bart Hanssen||7/10||1705 days||3.71||75%|
|Kilian Vos||9/10||1712 days||4.06||100%|
|Bartlomiej Berger||10/10||1732 days||4.03||98%|
|Antoine Vernay||9/10||1732 days||4.03||98%|
|Anja Weppler||10/10||1969 days||3.67||72%|
|Jacques Revel||9/10||1972 days||3.67||72%|
|Karen Garvin||10/10||1972 days||3.67||72%|
|Simeon W||8/10||1984 days||3.46||58%|
|Henrik Bours||9/10||1986 days||3.64||71%|
|Svenja Trubenbach||10/10||1986 days||3.64||71%|
|thibaut vernelle||8/10||2000 days||3.44||56%|
|Julia Seiffert||10/10||2003 days||3.62||69%|
|Daniel Robledo||9/10||2003 days||3.62||69%|
|Austin Johns||9/10||2004 days||3.62||69%|
|Joris Giullemot||10/10||2004 days||3.62||69%|
|Olivier Carval||9/10||2004 days||3.62||69%|
|Maria = Moller Hansen||10/10||2013 days||3.6||68%|
|David Forman||9/10||2017 days||3.6||67%|
|Tobias Gehring||10/10||2021 days||3.59||67%|
|Simon Tanguy||8/10||2021 days||3.41||54%|
|Matusala Habtemariam||10/10||2026 days||3.58||66%|
|M K||9/10||2043 days||3.56||64%|
|Ludvig Fagerstrom||10/10||2049 days||3.55||64%|
|Sara Williams||10/10||2057 days||3.54||63%|
|Thomas Roche||9/10||2063 days||3.53||62%|
|Evyatar Karni||9/10||2064 days||3.53||62%|
|Pierre Cinquin||8/10||2294 days||3.02||26%|
|Christin Woelk||10/10||2331 days||3.12||33%|
|Sven Woelk||10/10||2331 days||3.12||33%|
|Tim Vennewold||9/10||2354 days||3.08||31%|
|Yves Vennewald||10/10||2354 days||3.08||31%|
|Jiri van Straelper||9/10||2354 days||3.08||31%|
|Sabisch Moritz||8/10||2367 days||2.91||19%|
|Rob Cadmus||9/10||2370 days||3.06||29%|
|Kate Glover||10/10||2370 days||3.06||29%|
|Fernando Martin||7/10||2374 days||2.78||9%|
|Francis Runge||9/10||2381 days||3.04||28%|
|Katharina Pape||9/10||2455 days||2.93||20%|
|Jon Barratt||9/10||2463 days||2.92||19%|
|Meryem Buchwitz||10/10||2470 days||2.91||19%|
|Rena and Kirsten||7/10||2471 days||2.64||0%|
|Abee and Suess||10/10||2474 days||2.9||18%|
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Fiordland National Park does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.