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 Lumsden Information Centre.
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.
65 Valid Reviews
The Lumsden Information Centre experience has a total of 68 reviews. There are 65 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 3 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.
Within these 65 valid reviews, the experience has 3 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 65 valid reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the Lumsden Information Centre valid reviews is 90.15% and is based on 65 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
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.
|Anni Heltti||10/10||105 days||98.25||98%|
|Tania Baird||9/10||144 days||96.71||97%|
|Keith & Kay Finlayson||10/10||175 days||95.15||95%|
|Kathryn Torkington||1/10||328 days||60.55||59%|
|Megan Belanger||10/10||356 days||79.92||79%|
|Boris Clémençon||10/10||387 days||76.27||75%|
|Jonas R.||10/10||479 days||63.64||62%|
|Katharina Pisarew||9/10||727 days||26.46||23%|
|Luis Vigil Vidal||10/10||735 days||25.54||22%|
|Dennis Hesse||10/10||739 days||25.08||22%|
|Tori De||1/10||752 days||17.26||14%|
|Marketa Weisserová||10/10||765 days||22.26||19%|
|Yanzhi Cheng||10/10||827 days||16.38||13%|
|Joe Trigg||9/10||831 days||16.04||12%|
|Jenny Jaye||10/10||847 days||14.75||11%|
|Victoria Smith||10/10||898 days||11.15||7%|
|Poppy Ritchie||10/10||927 days||9.47||6%|
|Judy Aspinall||9/10||1012 days||6.09||2%|
|Rosanna Leeming||7/10||1073 days||4.62||1%|
|Matt Downey||7/10||1084 days||4.57||0%|
|Frankie Winsor||9/10||1100 days||4.99||1%|
|Lisa Al Agam||10/10||1112 days||4.97||1%|
|Thomas Jan Geelen||6/10||1126 days||4.1||0%|
|Audrey Zarlenga||10/10||1157 days||4.88||1%|
|Theo Mallais||10/10||1199 days||4.8||1%|
|Puneet Mishra||10/10||1202 days||4.79||1%|
|Derek Drost||7/10||1213 days||4.34||0%|
|Simon Liehout||9/10||1239 days||4.72||1%|
|Philippa Buchanan||9/10||1294 days||4.61||1%|
|Rita Ashby||8/10||1331 days||4.31||0%|
|Connie Hopper||9/10||1373 days||4.46||0%|
|Tatiana Rochereau||9/10||1382 days||4.44||0%|
|Andre Evers||9/10||1385 days||4.43||0%|
|David Elliott||8/10||1392 days||4.2||0%|
|Bernadette Arnet||9/10||1429 days||4.35||0%|
|Zdenda Barvinek||9/10||1475 days||4.26||0%|
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Lumsden Information Centre 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 email@example.com.