G'day, 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 TECT Park.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at info@rankers.co.nz. We don't believe this is perfect or complete so we're always interested in ways we might make improvements.
TECT Park
Valid Reviews
63 Valid Reviews
The TECT Park experience has a total of 64 reviews. There are 63 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.
Within these 63 valid reviews, the experience has 2 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 63 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 34 |
|
54% |
| 9/10 | 16 |
|
25% |
| 8/10 | 10 |
|
16% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
92.38% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the TECT Park valid reviews is 92.38% and is based on 63 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
Weighted Average
96.57%
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.
| Reviewer | Rating | Age | Relative Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danni H | 10/10 | 2 days | 100% |
| Dray L | 10/10 | 30 days | 100% |
| An | 10/10 | 30 days | 100% |
| Rebecca S | 10/10 | 30 days | 100% |
| Joaie | 10/10 | 92 days | 100% |
| Kirsty | 10/10 | 122 days | 99% |
| Daniel | 10/10 | 183 days | 98% |
| Klaudia | 10/10 | 183 days | 98% |
| Viktoria | 10/10 | 275 days | 96% |
| Lieske | 10/10 | 336 days | 94% |
| Jacinta | 9/10 | 336 days | 93% |
| Sof | 10/10 | 395 days | 91% |
| Rebecca | 10/10 | 395 days | 91% |
| Laura | 8/10 | 426 days | 88% |
| Daniel Carranza | 10/10 | 518 days | 85% |
| Audrey | 8/10 | 518 days | 83% |
| Aaron | 9/10 | 548 days | 82% |
| Rhea Y | 10/10 | 548 days | 83% |
| golden menu | 9/10 | 548 days | 82% |
| cclou | 10/10 | 671 days | 74% |
| Lulu | 10/10 | 732 days | 69% |
| Serena | 8/10 | 2222 days | 3% |
| Fran | 9/10 | 2253 days | 3% |
| Backpack On Fire | 10/10 | 2253 days | 3% |
| Remon | 10/10 | 2314 days | 3% |
| Martin Hansen | 10/10 | 2345 days | 3% |
| Bakers | 9/10 | 2375 days | 3% |
| Shane Howe | 10/10 | 2375 days | 3% |
| Kiwi kamper | 8/10 | 2437 days | 3% |
| Michelle Strydom | 10/10 | 2528 days | 3% |
| Marion & Leonie | 9/10 | 2587 days | 3% |
| Courtney | 9/10 | 2587 days | 3% |
| jcastl | 9/10 | 2679 days | 3% |
| Rikke Hessellund, Denmark | 8/10 | 2924 days | 2% |
| Keith Salway | 10/10 | 2963 days | 1% |
| Kyra Trouw | 10/10 | 3000 days | 2% |
| Annina Jarvinen | 5/10 | 3006 days | 1% |
| Claudie MieZech | 10/10 | 3036 days | 2% |
| Christoper Crowhurst | 10/10 | 3083 days | 2% |
| Greta Ross | 8/10 | 3098 days | 2% |
| Greg Smith | 9/10 | 3145 days | 2% |
| Nathan Lal | 9/10 | 3156 days | 2% |
| Daryl Fletcher | 10/10 | 3181 days | 2% |
| Blossom Yoshida | 9/10 | 3198 days | 1% |
| Lucile Gendre | 9/10 | 3246 days | 1% |
| Nicholas Tranchant | 9/10 | 3253 days | 1% |
| Jana Welsch | 10/10 | 3267 days | 1% |
| Sky Pardoe Davies | 8/10 | 3272 days | 1% |
| Christine Allgaier | 10/10 | 3299 days | 1% |
| Alison Gonscak | 10/10 | 3300 days | 1% |
| Jose Verli | 10/10 | 3427 days | 1% |
| Philipp Jahn | 8/10 | 3448 days | 1% |
| Aidan Byrne | 7/10 | 3457 days | 1% |
| Eric Pollard | 10/10 | 3475 days | 1% |
| Thomas Nix | 9/10 | 3574 days | 1% |
| Peter Barker | 10/10 | 3632 days | 1% |
| Sandra Hamilton | 9/10 | 3644 days | 1% |
| George Bellwood | 9/10 | 3645 days | 0% |
| Philippa and Adam | 10/10 | 3646 days | 1% |
| Nina Jensen | 10/10 | 3692 days | 1% |
| Tomas Soldat | 8/10 | 3713 days | 0% |
| Ahmed Mohsen Aly | 8/10 | 3774 days | 0% |
| Niall Crosby | 6/10 | 3898 days | 0% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. TECT Park does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
0.29% Adjustment
Every experience's review score is adjusted to balance out the disproportional number of negative reviews that are contributed.
You won't be surprised to learn that disgruntled folk are more likely to leave a review than happy ones. They are motivated to share their experience and warn others. We consider this a good thing and it's why reading the reviews is important. However we've learned it can misrepresent the experience in a more overall sense.
We apply a balancing adjustment to counteract this effect and ensure the ranking score is a more fair representation of the experience. This adjustment is applied equally to all experiences.
Final Ranking Score
97%
The final ranking score once any adjustments, ratings, and rounding has been applied. This value is recalculated each day and a short rolling average is applied. Therefore it may not be precisely accurate based on the other values presented.