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 Jucy Rentals.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at firstname.lastname@example.org. We don't believe this is perfect or complete so we're always interested in ways we might make improvements.
99 Valid Reviews
The Jucy Rentals experience has a total of 101 reviews. There are 99 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 99 valid reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the Jucy Rentals valid reviews is 63.03% and is based on 99 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
48 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 99 valid reviews, the experience has 48 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 48 face-to-face reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the Jucy Rentals face-to-face reviews is 76.46% and is based on 48 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.
|Brewdab Shing||3/10||377 days||100%|
|Don’t hire Jucy||1/10||560 days||61%|
|Graham Abbott||1/10||863 days||16%|
|Alicia Leong||8/10||925 days||15%|
|lee tin diong||8/10||1015 days||9%|
|Chris Webb||1/10||1108 days||6%|
|Rachel Doody||1/10||1533 days||4%|
|Joseph Liu||3/10||1533 days||5%|
|Meg Perry||1/10||1564 days||4%|
|Barbara Hirsch||9/10||1611 days||6%|
|Lucille Laurent||6/10||1616 days||5%|
|Nanna Overbeck||7/10||1653 days||5%|
|HAFEZ AMRI SANUSI||8/10||1654 days||6%|
|Nirmal Singh||1/10||1654 days||4%|
|Lauren Stephenson||1/10||1654 days||4%|
|Evan Lloyd||9/10||1682 days||6%|
|Im K||6/10||1684 days||5%|
|Thomas Ouin-Lagarde||1/10||1745 days||4%|
|Charlie Murray||4/10||1807 days||4%|
|Glenn Berry||1/10||1837 days||4%|
|Kelley Bollinger||1/10||1868 days||4%|
|Simon Striegel||9/10||1967 days||5%|
|Toni Gabby||8/10||1985 days||5%|
|Lucio Maggioli||1/10||2020 days||3%|
|Philipp Schauerbeck||8/10||2025 days||4%|
|Theodorou Konstantina||8/10||2026 days||4%|
|Willy Wayne||1/10||2295 days||3%|
|Damaris Mayer||4/10||2335 days||3%|
|Sophia Kadel||10/10||2341 days||4%|
|Bart Hanssen||7/10||2364 days||3%|
|Cora and Franzi||8/10||2377 days||3%|
|Aaron V||9/10||2415 days||3%|
|Ashley Bucklin||1/10||2446 days||2%|
|isabel Zander||8/10||2629 days||3%|
|Calvin Becker||9/10||2629 days||3%|
|Leonie Moeller||6/10||2639 days||2%|
|Jonas Foerch||9/10||2661 days||3%|
|Lena Wacker||9/10||2672 days||3%|
|Jacqueline Skelton||5/10||2751 days||2%|
|Fleur Douglas||10/10||2781 days||2%|
|Priyanka C||2/10||2812 days||1%|
|Lieven De Vlaminck||10/10||3025 days||1%|
|Neele & Philipp||7/10||3036 days||1%|
|Katharina Littlemann||9/10||3038 days||1%|
|Gerard van de Ven||5/10||3121 days||1%|
|Harald Prinz||8/10||3127 days||1%|
|Martin & Dee Bellarby||9/10||3401 days||0%|
|Andreas Kofod-Hansen||8/10||3405 days||0%|
|R Straathof||8/10||3407 days||0%|
|Frank Waskikowski||7/10||3414 days||0%|
|Christina Murphy||7/10||3714 days||1%|
|Stephane Lebel||8/10||3730 days||1%|
|Lillian van Wegen||7/10||3745 days||1%|
|Estel la Prado||5/10||3751 days||1%|
|Courtney Wood||8/10||3755 days||1%|
|Carolin Moberg||7/10||3762 days||1%|
|Philipp Rau||8/10||3776 days||1%|
|Ellen Thompson||8/10||3780 days||1%|
|Ryan Tull||8/10||3780 days||1%|
|Aldon Tipuna||10/10||3877 days||1%|
|maggie Webster||8/10||4108 days||1%|
|Hugh deLautour||9/10||4150 days||1%|
|Simon Johns||10/10||4181 days||1%|
|mike brett||7/10||4591 days||1%|
|Emma Dolk||8/10||4872 days||1%|
Several adjustments to the weighted average are added to improve relevancy and credibility. These adjustments apply equally to all experiences that meet the criteria.
A reasonable number of reviews are necessary in order for the average to be credible and for an experience to take a prime position within the ranking tables. As such, experiences with only a few reviews have a moderated score. This does not mean that the experience or the reviews can't be trusted. The Jucy Rentals experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent reviews reflect the experience as it currently operates. This means it's important to get fresh reviews. Some experiences discovered they could get a few good reviews and then, resting on their laurels, discourage any further reviews. This adjustment stimulates experiences to be positively involved in the review generating process and discourages them from manipulating the ranking system in this manner.
What constitutes a recent review is based on the how old it is, what type of experience it is applied to and and what time of year it currently is. Due to the seasonal nature of many businesses, what is considered recent is dynamically adjusted throughout the year.
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received enough reviews within the last 114 days. The Jucy Rentals experience has 0 recent rankings. Adjustments are according to the following table:
In addition, an experience's ranking score may be adjusted for each day there is no new ranking. After 1 day the adjustment comes into effect. The maximum number of days that can be adjusted for is 200 days. Due to the seasonal nature of many businesses, this adjustment is applied dynamically throughout the year.
The Jucy Rentals experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
The final ranking score once adjustments and 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 email@example.com.