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||2223 days||93%|
|Markus Johannes||7/10||2223 days||93%|
|Coralie Ambrosino||8/10||2224 days||100%|
|Rebecca Wharton||8/10||2252 days||97%|
|Bart Hanssen||7/10||2305 days||84%|
|Kilian Vos||9/10||2312 days||98%|
|Bartlomiej Berger||10/10||2332 days||96%|
|Antoine Vernay||9/10||2332 days||96%|
|Anja Weppler||10/10||2569 days||67%|
|Jacques Revel||9/10||2572 days||67%|
|Karen Garvin||10/10||2572 days||67%|
|Simeon W||8/10||2584 days||59%|
|Henrik Bours||9/10||2586 days||65%|
|Svenja Trubenbach||10/10||2586 days||65%|
|thibaut vernelle||8/10||2600 days||57%|
|Julia Seiffert||10/10||2603 days||63%|
|Daniel Robledo||9/10||2603 days||63%|
|Austin Johns||9/10||2604 days||63%|
|Joris Giullemot||10/10||2604 days||63%|
|Olivier Carval||9/10||2604 days||63%|
|Maria = Moller Hansen||10/10||2613 days||62%|
|David Forman||9/10||2617 days||61%|
|Tobias Gehring||10/10||2621 days||61%|
|Simon Tanguy||8/10||2621 days||54%|
|Matusala Habtemariam||10/10||2626 days||60%|
|M K||9/10||2643 days||58%|
|Ludvig Fagerstrom||10/10||2649 days||57%|
|Sara Williams||10/10||2657 days||56%|
|Thomas Roche||9/10||2663 days||56%|
|Evyatar Karni||9/10||2664 days||55%|
|Pierre Cinquin||8/10||2894 days||23%|
|Christin Woelk||10/10||2931 days||23%|
|Sven Woelk||10/10||2931 days||23%|
|Tim Vennewold||9/10||2954 days||20%|
|Yves Vennewald||10/10||2954 days||20%|
|Jiri van Straelper||9/10||2954 days||20%|
|Sabisch Moritz||8/10||2967 days||15%|
|Rob Cadmus||9/10||2970 days||18%|
|Kate Glover||10/10||2970 days||18%|
|Fernando Martin||7/10||2974 days||11%|
|Francis Runge||9/10||2981 days||17%|
|Katharina Pape||9/10||3055 days||8%|
|Jon Barratt||9/10||3063 days||7%|
|Meryem Buchwitz||10/10||3070 days||6%|
|Rena and Kirsten||7/10||3071 days||0%|
|Abee and Suess||10/10||3074 days||6%|
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.