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
79.42%
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 | 2828 days | 100% |
| Jocelyn Booy | 10/10 | 2855 days | 98% |
| David | 8/10 | 2857 days | 96% |
| Andi Teuber | 8/10 | 2867 days | 96% |
| Loic Besson | 6/10 | 2896 days | 82% |
| Jasmine Rogers | 8/10 | 2916 days | 92% |
| Anthony Terry | 10/10 | 2921 days | 94% |
| Clare Holden | 6/10 | 3182 days | 66% |
| Stephan Ophelders | 8/10 | 3188 days | 75% |
| Riviere | 5/10 | 3200 days | 57% |
| Lothen | 10/10 | 3200 days | 76% |
| Maike Santelmann | 5/10 | 3207 days | 57% |
| Oliver Schatz | 6/10 | 3209 days | 65% |
| Pernille and Flemming | 9/10 | 3236 days | 73% |
| Sofie Jebsen | 9/10 | 3544 days | 53% |
| Tobias Becker | 9/10 | 3597 days | 49% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 3890 days | 31% |
| jefft | 10/10 | 3890 days | 31% |
| Barbara | 7/10 | 3932 days | 26% |
| Julie Robinson | 10/10 | 3935 days | 28% |
| Barbara | 6/10 | 3935 days | 24% |
| Ene Pold | 7/10 | 3942 days | 25% |
| Emilie Chanbon | 9/10 | 3951 days | 27% |
| Lionel | 4/10 | 3952 days | 17% |
| Alacchi Moustier | 10/10 | 3961 days | 26% |
| Ludvig Fagerstrom | 5/10 | 3967 days | 19% |
| Claire | 9/10 | 4285 days | 5% |
| James Young | 4/10 | 4287 days | 3% |
| Jeanne Moustier | 10/10 | 4326 days | 2% |
| Hanneke P | 6/10 | 4344 days | 1% |
| Margaret and Derek McNeil | 10/10 | 4360 days | 0% |
| Karin Genyn | 7/10 | 4361 days | 0% |
| Manuela and Thomas | 3/10 | 4381 days | 17% |
| Dagette | 9/10 | 4436 days | 32% |
| Oliver Hardt | 8/10 | 4639 days | 31% |
| Clausen | 4/10 | 4643 days | 21% |
| Alan Brady | 7/10 | 4647 days | 30% |
| Daniel Patricia | 3/10 | 4653 days | 17% |
| Harriet Holm | 9/10 | 4659 days | 32% |
| Karin Laurev | 8/10 | 4659 days | 31% |
| Dieter Mangold | 10/10 | 4662 days | 32% |
| Karin | 8/10 | 4662 days | 31% |
| Melanie Mathiak | 5/10 | 4662 days | 24% |
| Beat Kindler | 4/10 | 4662 days | 21% |
| Sue Robertson | 9/10 | 4663 days | 32% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 5/10 | 4664 days | 24% |
| John A Jerome | 7/10 | 4665 days | 30% |
| Chris & Jen Spencer | 5/10 | 4690 days | 24% |
| Johan Kroese | 4/10 | 4690 days | 21% |
| Jackie & Ray | 9/10 | 4692 days | 32% |
| Jensen Bresbenbeek | 4/10 | 4742 days | 21% |
| Nick Foster | 9/10 | 4998 days | 32% |
| Annie Breton | 8/10 | 4999 days | 31% |
| Oppenoorth | 6/10 | 5004 days | 28% |
| Siggi Wick | 9/10 | 5007 days | 32% |
| E Brockbank | 9/10 | 5007 days | 32% |
| Juerg & Denise Zuesli | 4/10 | 5009 days | 21% |
| Ross | 4/10 | 5009 days | 21% |
| Andrea Fuchs | 8/10 | 5010 days | 31% |
| Sandra Schulz | 10/10 | 5010 days | 32% |
| Jack Vermeidem | 6/10 | 5014 days | 28% |
| Louise van der Hyden | 7/10 | 5014 days | 30% |
| LandJ | 6/10 | 5016 days | 28% |
| Gerhard | 9/10 | 5017 days | 32% |
| Geert Van Tittelboom | 8/10 | 5020 days | 31% |
| Matthys Kikke | 3/10 | 5020 days | 17% |
| Manu & Gabi | 10/10 | 5021 days | 32% |
| John Brand | 9/10 | 5030 days | 32% |
| Dana Pagliarini | 6/10 | 5032 days | 28% |
| Brandt | 1/10 | 5041 days | 12% |
| Tsmith | 8/10 | 5044 days | 31% |
| Remke | 9/10 | 5045 days | 32% |
| victoriauk | 8/10 | 5289 days | 31% |
| Dud Grossmann | 10/10 | 5298 days | 32% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5299 days | 32% |
| Versteeg | 5/10 | 5302 days | 24% |
| Peter Aerborg | 8/10 | 5317 days | 31% |
| Ian | 9/10 | 5320 days | 32% |
| Bowness | 9/10 | 5368 days | 32% |
| Hilary and Chris Ayton | 8/10 | 5369 days | 31% |
| Gerald Veldink | 8/10 | 5369 days | 31% |
| Marcia & Bruce | 9/10 | 5371 days | 32% |
| Peter Brown | 8/10 | 5377 days | 31% |
| Don & Alice | 1/10 | 5385 days | 12% |
| Lehmann | 2/10 | 5391 days | 14% |
| Wilbert Germ | 9/10 | 5394 days | 32% |
| Annie | 7/10 | 5403 days | 30% |
| Jerry | 8/10 | 5409 days | 31% |
| nigelst | 8/10 | 5415 days | 31% |
| Sibille Fischer | 6/10 | 5422 days | 28% |
| Jennifer Templeton | 8/10 | 5426 days | 31% |
| ingeh | 10/10 | 5464 days | 32% |
| Val and Barnie Weir | 10/10 | 5494 days | 32% |
| TonyS | 3/10 | 5501 days | 17% |
| bondd | 9/10 | 5580 days | 32% |
| harryb | 8/10 | 5580 days | 31% |
| regw | 10/10 | 5591 days | 32% |
| andriesk | 9/10 | 5597 days | 32% |
| naturelover | 10/10 | 5660 days | 32% |
| familytravellers | 8/10 | 5727 days | 31% |
| Christian Moll | 9/10 | 5731 days | 32% |
| Lucas | 10/10 | 5732 days | 32% |
| Kitty | 9/10 | 5732 days | 32% |
| CornelissenS | 9/10 | 5732 days | 32% |
| FramiskaH | 8/10 | 5733 days | 31% |
| JaninaF | 8/10 | 5733 days | 31% |
| Anton | 10/10 | 5739 days | 32% |
| VacherD | 3/10 | 5750 days | 17% |
| Christian | 9/10 | 5752 days | 32% |
| Brian | 9/10 | 5755 days | 32% |
| John | 8/10 | 5759 days | 31% |
| CSander | 9/10 | 5773 days | 32% |
| De Vries | 2/10 | 5784 days | 14% |
| Claudia | 8/10 | 5800 days | 31% |
| bobmcg | 7/10 | 5828 days | 30% |
| Georgina Mulligan | 7/10 | 6035 days | 30% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 6065 days | 30% |
| Sheila Haran | 8/10 | 6087 days | 31% |
| Marion | 10/10 | 6095 days | 32% |
| Klaus | 8/10 | 6106 days | 31% |
| Marian Mckinney | 7/10 | 6108 days | 30% |
| Sally and David Wallis | 7/10 | 6115 days | 30% |
| Christian Schwerdt | 7/10 | 6116 days | 30% |
| Wanda | 8/10 | 6116 days | 31% |
| Roger & Margaret | 9/10 | 6129 days | 32% |
| Zegwaard | 7/10 | 6131 days | 30% |
| Jo | 7/10 | 6157 days | 30% |
| Dupre | 9/10 | 6184 days | 32% |
| Floren | 8/10 | 6204 days | 31% |
| Sue | 8/10 | 6433 days | 31% |
| Jim | 9/10 | 6433 days | 32% |
| Stefan | 6/10 | 6436 days | 28% |
| TeamFlorida | 10/10 | 6452 days | 32% |
| Anna | 8/10 | 6474 days | 31% |
| Christine | 9/10 | 6478 days | 32% |
| Shirely | 9/10 | 6480 days | 32% |
| Berke | 10/10 | 6480 days | 32% |
| Fraser | 10/10 | 6489 days | 32% |
| Beate | 10/10 | 6493 days | 32% |
| Kate&Steve Jones | 7/10 | 6493 days | 30% |
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
-4.06% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 43 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 | -4.00% |
| 198 | -4.02% |
| 199 | -4.04% |
| 200 | -4.06% |
| 201 | -4.08% |
| 202 | -4.10% |
| 203 | -4.12% |
| … | … |
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.