G'day, 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 Royal Albatross Centre.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at info@rankers.co.nz. We don't believe this is perfect or complete so we're always interested in ways we might make improvements.
Royal Albatross Centre
Valid Reviews
140 Valid Reviews
The Royal Albatross Centre experience has a total of 140 valid reviews. There are no 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.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 140 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 26 |
|
19% |
| 9/10 | 32 |
|
23% |
| 8/10 | 31 |
|
22% |
| 7/10 | 16 |
|
11% |
| 6/10 | 11 |
|
8% |
| 5/10 | 7 |
|
5% |
| 4/10 | 8 |
|
6% |
| 3/10 | 5 |
|
4% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
75.86% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Royal Albatross Centre valid reviews is 75.86% and is based on 140 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
Face-to-Face Reviews
131 Face-to-Face Reviews
The Rankers team meets with travellers while they’re in New Zealand and conducts face-to-face surveys. These reviews, in our opinion, are the most trusted in the industry and represent a critical control sample. To our knowledge, we are the only travel review website in the world that has gone to this extent.
More about face-to-face reviews
Within the 140 valid reviews, the experience has 131 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 131 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 26 |
|
20% |
| 9/10 | 30 |
|
23% |
| 8/10 | 29 |
|
22% |
| 7/10 | 14 |
|
11% |
| 6/10 | 9 |
|
7% |
| 5/10 | 7 |
|
5% |
| 4/10 | 8 |
|
6% |
| 3/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 1/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
76.26% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Royal Albatross Centre face-to-face reviews is 76.26% and is based on 131 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
79.38%
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.
| Reviewer | Rating | Age | Relative Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tomas Kellner | 10/10 | 2937 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 2964 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 2966 days | 95% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 2976 days | 95% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 3005 days | 79% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 3025 days | 91% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 3030 days | 92% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3291 days | 59% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3297 days | 69% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3309 days | 49% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3309 days | 70% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3316 days | 49% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3318 days | 57% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3345 days | 66% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3653 days | 41% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 3706 days | 37% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 3999 days | 14% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 3999 days | 14% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 4041 days | 9% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 4044 days | 10% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 4044 days | 7% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 4051 days | 8% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 4060 days | 9% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 4061 days | 0% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 4070 days | 8% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 4076 days | 2% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4394 days | 24% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4396 days | 10% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4435 days | 25% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4453 days | 19% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4469 days | 25% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4470 days | 22% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4490 days | 6% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4545 days | 24% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 4748 days | 24% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 4752 days | 10% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 4756 days | 22% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 4762 days | 6% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 4768 days | 24% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 4768 days | 24% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 4771 days | 25% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 4771 days | 24% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 4771 days | 15% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 4771 days | 10% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 4772 days | 24% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 4773 days | 15% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 4774 days | 22% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 4799 days | 15% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 4799 days | 10% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 4801 days | 24% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 4851 days | 10% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 5107 days | 24% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 5108 days | 24% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5113 days | 19% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5116 days | 24% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5116 days | 24% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5118 days | 10% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5118 days | 10% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5119 days | 24% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5119 days | 25% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5123 days | 19% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5123 days | 22% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5125 days | 19% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5126 days | 24% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5129 days | 24% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5129 days | 6% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5130 days | 25% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5139 days | 24% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5141 days | 19% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5150 days | 0% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5153 days | 24% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5154 days | 24% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5398 days | 24% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5407 days | 25% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5408 days | 25% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5411 days | 15% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5426 days | 24% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5429 days | 24% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5477 days | 24% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5478 days | 24% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5478 days | 24% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5480 days | 24% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5486 days | 24% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5494 days | 0% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5500 days | 2% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5503 days | 24% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5512 days | 22% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5518 days | 24% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5524 days | 24% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5531 days | 19% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5535 days | 24% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5573 days | 25% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5603 days | 25% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5610 days | 6% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 5689 days | 24% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5689 days | 24% |
| regw | 10/10 | 5700 days | 25% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 5706 days | 24% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 5769 days | 25% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 5836 days | 24% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 5840 days | 24% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 5840 days | 25% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 5841 days | 24% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 5841 days | 24% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 5842 days | 24% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 5842 days | 24% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 5848 days | 25% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 5859 days | 6% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 5861 days | 24% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 5863 days | 24% |
| John | 8/10 | 5868 days | 24% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 5882 days | 24% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 5892 days | 2% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 5909 days | 24% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 5937 days | 22% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6144 days | 22% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6174 days | 22% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6196 days | 24% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6204 days | 25% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6215 days | 24% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6217 days | 22% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6224 days | 22% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6225 days | 22% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6225 days | 24% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6238 days | 24% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6240 days | 22% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6266 days | 22% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6293 days | 24% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6313 days | 24% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6542 days | 24% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6542 days | 24% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6545 days | 19% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6561 days | 25% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6583 days | 24% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6587 days | 24% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6589 days | 24% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6589 days | 25% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6598 days | 25% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6602 days | 25% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6602 days | 22% |
Adjustments
Several adjustments to the weighted average are added to improve relevancy and credibility. These adjustments apply equally to all experiences that meet the criteria.
Sample Size Adjustment
No Adjustment
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 Royal Albatross Centre experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-4.02% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 57 days. However the Royal Albatross Centre 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 Royal Albatross Centre experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -3.96% |
| 198 | -3.98% |
| 199 | -4.00% |
| 200 | -4.02% |
| 201 | -4.04% |
| 202 | -4.06% |
| 203 | -4.08% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.51% Adjustment
Every experience's review score is adjusted to balance out the disproportional number of negative reviews that are contributed.
You won't be surprised to learn that disgruntled customers are more likely to leave a review than happy ones. They are motivated to share their experience and warn others. We consider this a good thing and it's why reading the reviews is important. However we've learned it can misrepresent the experience in a more overall sense.
We apply a balancing adjustment to counteract this effect and ensure the ranking score is a more fair representation of the experience. This adjustment is applied equally to all experiences.
Final Ranking Score
80%
The final ranking score once any adjustments, ratings, and rounding has been applied. This value is recalculated each day and a short rolling average is applied. Therefore it may not be precisely accurate based on the other values presented.