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.
83 Valid Reviews
The Lumsden Information Centre experience has a total of 88 reviews. There are 83 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 5 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 83 valid reviews, the experience has 3 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 83 valid reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the Lumsden Information Centre valid reviews is 91.20% and is based on 83 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.
|Jeannine Davis||10/10||23 days||100%|
|JT & MJ||10/10||84 days||99%|
|Fiona Taylor||7/10||145 days||88%|
|Maureen Tate||9/10||145 days||97%|
|The Gillies||8/10||145 days||92%|
|Teesh K||10/10||265 days||89%|
|Kate in NZ||10/10||388 days||75%|
|Jane Lawrence||9/10||539 days||52%|
|Anni Heltti||10/10||653 days||19%|
|Tania Baird||9/10||692 days||28%|
|Keith & Kay Finlayson||10/10||723 days||25%|
|Kathryn Torkington||1/10||876 days||6%|
|Megan Belanger||10/10||904 days||8%|
|Boris Clémençon||10/10||935 days||6%|
|Jonas R.||10/10||1027 days||3%|
|Katharina Pisarew||9/10||1275 days||0%|
|Luis Vigil Vidal||10/10||1283 days||0%|
|Dennis Hesse||10/10||1287 days||1%|
|Tori De||1/10||1300 days||0%|
|Marketa Weisserová||10/10||1313 days||1%|
|Yanzhi Cheng||10/10||1375 days||1%|
|Joe Trigg||9/10||1379 days||1%|
|Jenny Jaye||10/10||1395 days||1%|
|Victoria Smith||10/10||1446 days||1%|
|Poppy Ritchie||10/10||1475 days||1%|
|Judy Aspinall||9/10||1560 days||1%|
|Rosanna Leeming||7/10||1621 days||0%|
|Matt Downey||7/10||1632 days||0%|
|Frankie Winsor||9/10||1648 days||1%|
|Lisa Al Agam||10/10||1660 days||1%|
|Thomas Jan Geelen||6/10||1674 days||0%|
|Audrey Zarlenga||10/10||1705 days||1%|
|Theo Mallais||10/10||1747 days||1%|
|Puneet Mishra||10/10||1750 days||1%|
|Derek Drost||7/10||1761 days||0%|
|Simon Liehout||9/10||1787 days||0%|
|Philippa Buchanan||9/10||1842 days||0%|
|Rita Ashby||8/10||1879 days||0%|
|Connie Hopper||9/10||1921 days||0%|
|Tatiana Rochereau||9/10||1930 days||0%|
|Andre Evers||9/10||1933 days||0%|
|David Elliott||8/10||1940 days||0%|
|Bernadette Arnet||9/10||1977 days||0%|
|Zdenda Barvinek||9/10||2023 days||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.