Kia ora, 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
79.25%
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 | 3208 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 3235 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 3237 days | 95% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 3247 days | 95% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 3276 days | 81% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 3296 days | 90% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 3301 days | 92% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3562 days | 59% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3568 days | 67% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3580 days | 51% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3580 days | 68% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3587 days | 51% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3589 days | 57% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3616 days | 64% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3924 days | 37% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 3977 days | 33% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 4270 days | 7% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 4270 days | 7% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 4312 days | 3% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 4315 days | 3% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 4315 days | 3% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 4322 days | 3% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 4331 days | 2% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 4332 days | 1% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 4341 days | 1% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 4347 days | 0% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4665 days | 42% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4667 days | 27% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4706 days | 42% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4724 days | 36% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4740 days | 42% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4741 days | 39% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4761 days | 22% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4816 days | 42% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 5019 days | 41% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 5023 days | 27% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 5027 days | 39% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 5033 days | 22% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 5039 days | 42% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 5039 days | 41% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 5042 days | 42% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 5042 days | 41% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 5042 days | 32% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 5042 days | 27% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 5043 days | 42% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 5044 days | 32% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 5045 days | 39% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 5070 days | 32% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 5070 days | 27% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 5072 days | 42% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 5122 days | 27% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 5378 days | 42% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 5379 days | 41% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5384 days | 36% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5387 days | 42% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5387 days | 42% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5389 days | 27% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5389 days | 27% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5390 days | 41% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5390 days | 42% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5394 days | 36% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5394 days | 39% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5396 days | 36% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5397 days | 42% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5400 days | 41% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5400 days | 22% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5401 days | 42% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5410 days | 42% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5412 days | 36% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5421 days | 16% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5424 days | 41% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5425 days | 42% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5669 days | 41% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5678 days | 42% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5679 days | 42% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5682 days | 32% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5697 days | 41% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5700 days | 42% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5748 days | 42% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5749 days | 41% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5749 days | 41% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5751 days | 42% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5757 days | 41% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5765 days | 16% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5771 days | 18% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5774 days | 42% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5783 days | 39% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5789 days | 41% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5795 days | 41% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5802 days | 36% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5806 days | 41% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5844 days | 42% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5874 days | 42% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5881 days | 22% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 5960 days | 42% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5960 days | 41% |
| regw | 10/10 | 5971 days | 42% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 5977 days | 42% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 6040 days | 42% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 6107 days | 41% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 6111 days | 42% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 6111 days | 42% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 6112 days | 42% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 6112 days | 42% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 6113 days | 41% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 6113 days | 41% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 6118 days | 42% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 6130 days | 22% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 6131 days | 42% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 6134 days | 42% |
| John | 8/10 | 6138 days | 41% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 6153 days | 42% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 6163 days | 18% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 6179 days | 41% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 6208 days | 39% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6415 days | 39% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6445 days | 39% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6467 days | 41% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6475 days | 42% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6486 days | 41% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6488 days | 39% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6495 days | 39% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6496 days | 39% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6496 days | 41% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6509 days | 42% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6511 days | 39% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6537 days | 39% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6564 days | 42% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6584 days | 41% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6813 days | 41% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6813 days | 42% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6816 days | 36% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6832 days | 42% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6854 days | 41% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6858 days | 42% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6860 days | 42% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6860 days | 42% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6869 days | 42% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6873 days | 42% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6873 days | 39% |
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
-4.07% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 42 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 | -4.01% |
| 198 | -4.03% |
| 199 | -4.05% |
| 200 | -4.07% |
| 201 | -4.09% |
| 202 | -4.11% |
| 203 | -4.13% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.58% 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.