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.
51 Valid Reviews
The Fiordland National Park experience has a total of 51 valid reviews. There are no 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 51 valid reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the Fiordland National Park valid reviews is 89.80% and is based on 51 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
51 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 51 valid reviews, the experience has 51 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 51 face-to-face reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the Fiordland National Park face-to-face reviews is 89.80% and is based on 51 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||1197 days||5.83||100%|
|Markus Johannes||7/10||1197 days||5.83||100%|
|Coralie Ambrosino||8/10||1198 days||5.83||100%|
|Rebecca Wharton||8/10||1226 days||5.78||97%|
|Bart Hanssen||7/10||1279 days||5.7||90%|
|Kilian Vos||9/10||1286 days||5.69||90%|
|Susi Clearwater||10/10||1301 days||5.66||88%|
|Bartlomiej Berger||10/10||1306 days||5.65||87%|
|Antoine Vernay||9/10||1306 days||5.65||87%|
|Anja Weppler||10/10||1543 days||5.26||59%|
|Jacques Revel||9/10||1546 days||5.26||59%|
|Karen Garvin||10/10||1546 days||5.26||59%|
|Simeon W||8/10||1558 days||5.24||58%|
|Henrik Bours||9/10||1560 days||5.24||57%|
|Svenja Trubenbach||10/10||1560 days||5.24||57%|
|thibaut vernelle||8/10||1574 days||5.21||56%|
|Julia Seiffert||10/10||1577 days||5.21||55%|
|Daniel Robledo||9/10||1577 days||5.21||55%|
|Austin Johns||9/10||1578 days||5.21||55%|
|Joris Giullemot||10/10||1578 days||5.21||55%|
|Olivier Carval||9/10||1578 days||5.21||55%|
|Maria = Moller Hansen||10/10||1587 days||5.19||54%|
|David Forman||9/10||1591 days||5.18||54%|
|Tobias Gehring||10/10||1595 days||5.18||53%|
|Simon Tanguy||8/10||1595 days||5.18||53%|
|Matusala Habtemariam||10/10||1600 days||5.17||53%|
|M K||9/10||1617 days||5.14||51%|
|Ludvig Fagerstrom||10/10||1623 days||5.13||50%|
|Sara Williams||10/10||1631 days||5.12||49%|
|Thomas Roche||9/10||1637 days||5.11||48%|
|Evyatar Karni||9/10||1638 days||5.11||48%|
|Pierre Cinquin||8/10||1868 days||4.73||21%|
|Christin Woelk||10/10||1905 days||4.67||17%|
|Sven Woelk||10/10||1905 days||4.67||17%|
|Tim Vennewold||9/10||1928 days||4.63||14%|
|Yves Vennewald||10/10||1928 days||4.63||14%|
|Jiri van Straelper||9/10||1928 days||4.63||14%|
|Sabisch Moritz||8/10||1941 days||4.61||13%|
|Rob Cadmus||9/10||1944 days||4.6||12%|
|Kate Glover||10/10||1944 days||4.6||12%|
|Fernando Martin||7/10||1948 days||4.6||12%|
|Francis Runge||9/10||1955 days||4.59||11%|
|Katharina Pape||9/10||2029 days||4.46||2%|
|Jon Barratt||9/10||2037 days||4.45||1%|
|Meryem Buchwitz||10/10||2044 days||4.44||0%|
|Rena and Kirsten||7/10||2045 days||4.44||0%|
|Abee and Suess||10/10||2048 days||4.43||0%|
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.