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.
67 Valid Reviews
The Lumsden Information Centre experience has a total of 71 reviews. There are 67 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 67 valid reviews, the experience has 3 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 67 valid reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the Lumsden Information Centre valid reviews is 90.45% and is based on 67 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||132 days||97.24||97%|
|Tania Baird||9/10||171 days||95.37||95%|
|Keith & Kay Finlayson||10/10||202 days||93.53||93%|
|Kathryn Torkington||1/10||355 days||58.42||57%|
|Megan Belanger||10/10||383 days||76.76||76%|
|Boris Clémençon||10/10||414 days||72.84||72%|
|Jonas R.||10/10||506 days||59.43||58%|
|Katharina Pisarew||9/10||754 days||23.43||20%|
|Luis Vigil Vidal||10/10||762 days||22.57||19%|
|Dennis Hesse||10/10||766 days||22.15||19%|
|Tori De||1/10||779 days||15.2||12%|
|Marketa Weisserová||10/10||792 days||19.55||16%|
|Yanzhi Cheng||10/10||854 days||14.2||11%|
|Joe Trigg||9/10||858 days||13.9||10%|
|Jenny Jaye||10/10||874 days||12.74||9%|
|Victoria Smith||10/10||925 days||9.58||6%|
|Poppy Ritchie||10/10||954 days||8.15||4%|
|Judy Aspinall||9/10||1039 days||5.5||2%|
|Rosanna Leeming||7/10||1100 days||4.54||1%|
|Matt Downey||7/10||1111 days||4.52||0%|
|Frankie Winsor||9/10||1127 days||4.94||1%|
|Lisa Al Agam||10/10||1139 days||4.91||1%|
|Thomas Jan Geelen||6/10||1153 days||4.06||0%|
|Audrey Zarlenga||10/10||1184 days||4.83||1%|
|Theo Mallais||10/10||1226 days||4.74||1%|
|Puneet Mishra||10/10||1229 days||4.74||1%|
|Derek Drost||7/10||1240 days||4.29||0%|
|Simon Liehout||9/10||1265 days||4.67||1%|
|Philippa Buchanan||9/10||1321 days||4.56||1%|
|Rita Ashby||8/10||1357 days||4.26||0%|
|Connie Hopper||9/10||1400 days||4.4||0%|
|Tatiana Rochereau||9/10||1409 days||4.39||0%|
|Andre Evers||9/10||1412 days||4.38||0%|
|David Elliott||8/10||1418 days||4.15||0%|
|Bernadette Arnet||9/10||1456 days||4.29||0%|
|Zdenda Barvinek||9/10||1502 days||4.2||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.