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
79.50%
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 | 2903 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 2930 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 2932 days | 96% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 2942 days | 95% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 2971 days | 82% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 2991 days | 92% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 2996 days | 94% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3257 days | 65% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3263 days | 74% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3275 days | 57% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3275 days | 75% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3282 days | 56% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3284 days | 64% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3311 days | 71% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3619 days | 51% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 3672 days | 47% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 3965 days | 28% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 3965 days | 28% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 4007 days | 23% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 4010 days | 24% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 4010 days | 21% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 4017 days | 22% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 4026 days | 23% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 4027 days | 15% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 4036 days | 23% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 4042 days | 17% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4360 days | 1% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4362 days | 0% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4401 days | 34% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4419 days | 29% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4435 days | 34% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4436 days | 32% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4456 days | 18% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4511 days | 34% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 4714 days | 33% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 4718 days | 22% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 4722 days | 32% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 4728 days | 18% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 4734 days | 34% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 4734 days | 33% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 4737 days | 34% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 4737 days | 33% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 4737 days | 26% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 4737 days | 22% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 4738 days | 34% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 4739 days | 26% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 4740 days | 32% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 4765 days | 26% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 4765 days | 22% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 4767 days | 34% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 4817 days | 22% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 5073 days | 34% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 5074 days | 33% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5079 days | 29% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5082 days | 34% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5082 days | 34% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5084 days | 22% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5084 days | 22% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5085 days | 33% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5085 days | 34% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5089 days | 29% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5089 days | 32% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5091 days | 29% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5092 days | 34% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5095 days | 33% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5095 days | 18% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5096 days | 34% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5105 days | 34% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5107 days | 29% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5116 days | 13% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5119 days | 33% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5120 days | 34% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5364 days | 33% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5373 days | 34% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5374 days | 34% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5377 days | 26% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5392 days | 33% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5395 days | 34% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5443 days | 34% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5444 days | 33% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5444 days | 33% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5446 days | 34% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5452 days | 33% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5460 days | 13% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5466 days | 15% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5469 days | 34% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5478 days | 32% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5484 days | 33% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5490 days | 33% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5497 days | 29% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5501 days | 33% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5539 days | 34% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5569 days | 34% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5576 days | 18% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 5655 days | 34% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5655 days | 33% |
| regw | 10/10 | 5666 days | 34% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 5672 days | 34% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 5735 days | 34% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 5802 days | 33% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 5806 days | 34% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 5806 days | 34% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 5807 days | 34% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 5807 days | 34% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 5808 days | 33% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 5808 days | 33% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 5813 days | 34% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 5825 days | 18% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 5826 days | 34% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 5829 days | 34% |
| John | 8/10 | 5833 days | 33% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 5848 days | 34% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 5858 days | 15% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 5874 days | 33% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 5902 days | 32% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6109 days | 32% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6140 days | 32% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6162 days | 33% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6170 days | 34% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6181 days | 33% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6183 days | 32% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6190 days | 32% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6191 days | 32% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6191 days | 33% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6204 days | 34% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6206 days | 32% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6232 days | 32% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6259 days | 34% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6279 days | 33% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6508 days | 33% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6508 days | 34% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6511 days | 29% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6527 days | 34% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6549 days | 33% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6553 days | 34% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6555 days | 34% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6555 days | 34% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6564 days | 34% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6568 days | 34% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6568 days | 32% |
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
-4.15% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 50 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 | -4.09% |
| 198 | -4.11% |
| 199 | -4.13% |
| 200 | -4.15% |
| 201 | -4.17% |
| 202 | -4.19% |
| 203 | -4.21% |
| … | … |
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.