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 email@example.com. We don't believe this is perfect or complete so we're always interested in ways we might make improvements.
70 Valid Reviews
The Lumsden Information Centre experience has a total of 74 reviews. There are 70 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 4 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 70 valid reviews, the experience has 3 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 70 valid reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the Lumsden Information Centre valid reviews is 90.43% and is based on 70 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.
|Jane Lawrence||9/10||123 days||97.6||99%|
|Anni Heltti||10/10||237 days||91.1||92%|
|Tania Baird||9/10||276 days||87.93||89%|
|Keith & Kay Finlayson||10/10||307 days||85.07||86%|
|Kathryn Torkington||1/10||460 days||48.52||47%|
|Megan Belanger||10/10||488 days||62.26||62%|
|Boris Clémençon||10/10||519 days||57.32||56%|
|Jonas R.||10/10||611 days||42.12||40%|
|Katharina Pisarew||9/10||859 days||13.83||10%|
|Luis Vigil Vidal||10/10||867 days||13.24||10%|
|Dennis Hesse||10/10||871 days||12.95||10%|
|Tori De||1/10||884 days||8.8||5%|
|Marketa Weisserová||10/10||897 days||11.21||8%|
|Yanzhi Cheng||10/10||959 days||7.93||4%|
|Joe Trigg||9/10||963 days||7.76||4%|
|Jenny Jaye||10/10||979 days||7.13||3%|
|Victoria Smith||10/10||1030 days||5.67||2%|
|Poppy Ritchie||10/10||1059 days||5.21||1%|
|Judy Aspinall||9/10||1144 days||4.9||1%|
|Rosanna Leeming||7/10||1205 days||4.35||0%|
|Matt Downey||7/10||1216 days||4.33||0%|
|Frankie Winsor||9/10||1232 days||4.73||1%|
|Lisa Al Agam||10/10||1244 days||4.71||1%|
|Thomas Jan Geelen||6/10||1258 days||3.89||0%|
|Audrey Zarlenga||10/10||1289 days||4.62||1%|
|Theo Mallais||10/10||1331 days||4.54||1%|
|Puneet Mishra||10/10||1334 days||4.53||1%|
|Derek Drost||7/10||1345 days||4.1||0%|
|Simon Liehout||9/10||1371 days||4.46||1%|
|Philippa Buchanan||9/10||1426 days||4.35||0%|
|Rita Ashby||8/10||1463 days||4.07||0%|
|Connie Hopper||9/10||1505 days||4.2||0%|
|Tatiana Rochereau||9/10||1514 days||4.18||0%|
|Andre Evers||9/10||1517 days||4.17||0%|
|David Elliott||8/10||1524 days||3.95||0%|
|Bernadette Arnet||9/10||1561 days||4.09||0%|
|Zdenda Barvinek||9/10||1607 days||4.0||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 firstname.lastname@example.org.