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 McRent.
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.
44 Valid Reviews
The McRent experience has a total of 46 reviews. There are 44 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 2 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 44 valid reviews, the experience has 2 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 44 valid reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the McRent valid reviews is 89.55% and is based on 44 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.
|Trish Atama||10/10||34 days||99.82||100%|
|Garry Harrison||10/10||34 days||99.82||100%|
|Laura Hopwood||10/10||34 days||99.82||100%|
|Allan Stanley||10/10||63 days||99.37||99%|
|Chris and Susan||9/10||64 days||99.35||99%|
|Dominic Evans||9/10||64 days||99.35||99%|
|Marcus Franke||10/10||64 days||99.35||99%|
|John Upton||10/10||64 days||99.35||99%|
|Bruce & Lynn from Tuakau||10/10||95 days||98.57||98%|
|David Lubach||9/10||95 days||98.57||98%|
|Uwe and Sabine||10/10||109 days||98.12||98%|
|Margarida van Wijk||10/10||155 days||96.19||95%|
|Elke Gartner||9/10||184 days||94.64||93%|
|Christopher Gies||10/10||185 days||94.58||93%|
|Heikki Harismaa||9/10||194 days||94.04||93%|
|Peter and Susan||10/10||216 days||92.61||91%|
|peter wolf||10/10||276 days||87.93||85%|
|Philip Hetzler||10/10||276 days||87.93||85%|
|Jacquie Crawley||8/10||276 days||83.53||79%|
|Lisa Townsend||10/10||277 days||87.84||85%|
|Claudius How||10/10||277 days||87.84||85%|
|Emily Schacher||10/10||307 days||85.07||81%|
|Barbara Q.||10/10||308 days||84.97||81%|
|Jason Warner||10/10||338 days||81.9||77%|
|Peter + Anita||10/10||491 days||61.8||52%|
|Gerry Burri||10/10||522 days||56.82||46%|
|Edgar Martens||10/10||522 days||56.82||46%|
|Michael Vaughan||10/10||549 days||52.24||40%|
|Marc Berger||6/10||550 days||43.22||28%|
|Dave Fear||9/10||550 days||52.07||40%|
|Jörg Spiegel||10/10||550 days||52.07||40%|
|Niklas Granstrom||10/10||550 days||52.07||40%|
|Anna Schmidrathner||10/10||550 days||52.07||40%|
|Jean-Simon Lacasse||1/10||642 days||27.39||8%|
|glain webber||10/10||642 days||37.52||21%|
|Bud Betz||5/10||733 days||20.87||0%|
Several adjustments to the weighted average are added to improve relevancy and credibility. These adjustments apply equally to all experiences that meet the criteria.
A reasonable number of reviews are necessary in order for the average to be credible and for an experience to take a prime position within the ranking tables. As such, experiences with only a few reviews have a moderated score. This does not mean that the experience or the reviews can't be trusted. The McRent experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 121 days. However the McRent experience does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
In addition, an experience's ranking score may be adjusted for each day there is no new ranking. After 1 day the adjustment comes into effect. The maximum number of days that can be adjusted for is 200 days. Due to the seasonal nature of many businesses, this adjustment is applied dynamically throughout the year.
The McRent experience has been adjusted for 4 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
The final ranking score once adjustments 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.