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||1374 days||5.54||100%|
|Markus Johannes||7/10||1374 days||5.54||100%|
|Coralie Ambrosino||8/10||1375 days||5.54||100%|
|Rebecca Wharton||8/10||1403 days||5.49||97%|
|Bart Hanssen||7/10||1456 days||5.41||90%|
|Kilian Vos||9/10||1463 days||5.4||90%|
|Susi Clearwater||10/10||1478 days||5.37||88%|
|Bartlomiej Berger||10/10||1483 days||5.36||87%|
|Antoine Vernay||9/10||1483 days||5.36||87%|
|Anja Weppler||10/10||1720 days||4.97||59%|
|Jacques Revel||9/10||1723 days||4.97||59%|
|Karen Garvin||10/10||1723 days||4.97||59%|
|Simeon W||8/10||1735 days||4.95||58%|
|Henrik Bours||9/10||1737 days||4.94||57%|
|Svenja Trubenbach||10/10||1737 days||4.94||57%|
|thibaut vernelle||8/10||1751 days||4.92||56%|
|Julia Seiffert||10/10||1754 days||4.92||55%|
|Daniel Robledo||9/10||1754 days||4.92||55%|
|Austin Johns||9/10||1755 days||4.92||55%|
|Joris Giullemot||10/10||1755 days||4.92||55%|
|Olivier Carval||9/10||1755 days||4.92||55%|
|Maria = Moller Hansen||10/10||1764 days||4.9||54%|
|David Forman||9/10||1768 days||4.89||54%|
|Tobias Gehring||10/10||1772 days||4.89||53%|
|Simon Tanguy||8/10||1772 days||4.89||53%|
|Matusala Habtemariam||10/10||1777 days||4.88||53%|
|M K||9/10||1794 days||4.85||51%|
|Ludvig Fagerstrom||10/10||1800 days||4.84||50%|
|Sara Williams||10/10||1808 days||4.83||49%|
|Thomas Roche||9/10||1814 days||4.82||48%|
|Evyatar Karni||9/10||1815 days||4.82||48%|
|Pierre Cinquin||8/10||2045 days||4.44||21%|
|Christin Woelk||10/10||2082 days||4.38||17%|
|Sven Woelk||10/10||2082 days||4.38||17%|
|Tim Vennewold||9/10||2105 days||4.34||14%|
|Yves Vennewald||10/10||2105 days||4.34||14%|
|Jiri van Straelper||9/10||2105 days||4.34||14%|
|Sabisch Moritz||8/10||2118 days||4.32||13%|
|Rob Cadmus||9/10||2121 days||4.31||12%|
|Kate Glover||10/10||2121 days||4.31||12%|
|Fernando Martin||7/10||2125 days||4.31||12%|
|Francis Runge||9/10||2132 days||4.3||11%|
|Katharina Pape||9/10||2206 days||4.17||2%|
|Jon Barratt||9/10||2214 days||4.16||1%|
|Meryem Buchwitz||10/10||2221 days||4.15||0%|
|Rena and Kirsten||7/10||2222 days||4.15||0%|
|Abee and Suess||10/10||2225 days||4.14||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.