Hello 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.
88 Valid Reviews
The Lumsden Information Centre experience has a total of 93 reviews. There are 88 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 88 valid reviews, the experience has 3 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 88 valid reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the Lumsden Information Centre valid reviews is 91.70% and is based on 88 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.
|Jineesh D||10/10||62 days||100%|
|Caroline LEFEVRE||10/10||62 days||100%|
|Jeannine Davis||10/10||366 days||79%|
|JT & MJ||10/10||427 days||71%|
|Fiona Taylor||7/10||488 days||56%|
|Maureen Tate||9/10||488 days||62%|
|The Gillies||8/10||488 days||58%|
|Teesh K||10/10||608 days||41%|
|Kate in NZ||10/10||731 days||24%|
|Jane Lawrence||9/10||882 days||10%|
|Anni Heltti||10/10||996 days||1%|
|Tania Baird||9/10||1035 days||3%|
|Keith & Kay Finlayson||10/10||1066 days||3%|
|Kathryn Torkington||1/10||1219 days||1%|
|Megan Belanger||10/10||1247 days||2%|
|Boris Clémençon||10/10||1278 days||2%|
|Jonas R.||10/10||1370 days||2%|
|Katharina Pisarew||9/10||1618 days||0%|
|Luis Vigil Vidal||10/10||1626 days||0%|
|Dennis Hesse||10/10||1630 days||1%|
|Tori De||1/10||1643 days||0%|
|Marketa Weisserová||10/10||1656 days||1%|
|Yanzhi Cheng||10/10||1718 days||1%|
|Joe Trigg||9/10||1722 days||1%|
|Jenny Jaye||10/10||1738 days||1%|
|Victoria Smith||10/10||1789 days||1%|
|Poppy Ritchie||10/10||1818 days||1%|
|Judy Aspinall||9/10||1903 days||1%|
|Rosanna Leeming||7/10||1964 days||1%|
|Matt Downey||7/10||1975 days||0%|
|Frankie Winsor||9/10||1991 days||1%|
|Lisa Al Agam||10/10||2003 days||1%|
|Thomas Jan Geelen||6/10||2017 days||0%|
|Audrey Zarlenga||10/10||2048 days||1%|
|Theo Mallais||10/10||2090 days||1%|
|Puneet Mishra||10/10||2093 days||1%|
|Derek Drost||7/10||2104 days||0%|
|Simon Liehout||9/10||2130 days||0%|
|Philippa Buchanan||9/10||2185 days||0%|
|Rita Ashby||8/10||2222 days||0%|
|Connie Hopper||9/10||2264 days||0%|
|Tatiana Rochereau||9/10||2273 days||0%|
|Andre Evers||9/10||2276 days||0%|
|David Elliott||8/10||2283 days||0%|
|Bernadette Arnet||9/10||2320 days||0%|
|Zdenda Barvinek||9/10||2366 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 any adjustments, ratings, 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.