Hi, 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 Whites Bay Campsite.
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.
Whites Bay Campsite
Valid Reviews
72 Valid Reviews
The Whites Bay Campsite experience has a total of 75 reviews. There are 72 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 3 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 72 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 28 |
|
39% |
| 9/10 | 23 |
|
32% |
| 8/10 | 14 |
|
19% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
7% |
| 6/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
89.72% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Whites Bay Campsite valid reviews is 89.72% and is based on 72 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
31 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 72 valid reviews, the experience has 31 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 31 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 12 |
|
39% |
| 9/10 | 8 |
|
26% |
| 8/10 | 8 |
|
26% |
| 7/10 | 2 |
|
6% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
89.03% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Whites Bay Campsite face-to-face reviews is 89.03% and is based on 31 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
91.55%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| James | 9/10 | 40 days | 100% |
| Edward | 9/10 | 71 days | 100% |
| Savannah | 8/10 | 102 days | 98% |
| Sue | 10/10 | 377 days | 93% |
| Heloise | 9/10 | 406 days | 91% |
| Katy | 9/10 | 437 days | 89% |
| Ross Moles | 10/10 | 712 days | 72% |
| Scott D | 9/10 | 863 days | 57% |
| Lance Broyden | 9/10 | 923 days | 51% |
| Marrieke | 10/10 | 1136 days | 32% |
| Maddi | 10/10 | 1167 days | 30% |
| AMR | 10/10 | 1198 days | 28% |
| Miriam | 10/10 | 1563 days | 9% |
| Michaela | 8/10 | 1959 days | 4% |
| Andrius | 9/10 | 2173 days | 4% |
| Clare & Gerry | 8/10 | 2204 days | 4% |
| Kim | 8/10 | 2415 days | 4% |
| Rachel Mudge | 8/10 | 2589 days | 3% |
| Bec | 10/10 | 2622 days | 3% |
| Rob & Colleen Elwood | 9/10 | 2780 days | 3% |
| Linda Livett | 9/10 | 2933 days | 3% |
| Thue Thomasen | 10/10 | 2966 days | 3% |
| Greg Thompson | 9/10 | 3054 days | 2% |
| Jeremy | 9/10 | 3066 days | 2% |
| Kate Thornber | 10/10 | 3081 days | 2% |
| Laurie | 7/10 | 3084 days | 2% |
| Joanne Butfield | 8/10 | 3196 days | 2% |
| Arthur | 9/10 | 3244 days | 2% |
| Michael Miles | 10/10 | 3282 days | 2% |
| Esther M | 8/10 | 3308 days | 2% |
| Dave Horry | 9/10 | 3327 days | 2% |
| Toby Regan | 9/10 | 3352 days | 2% |
| Alva Feldmeier | 7/10 | 3586 days | 1% |
| Steffen Paul | 7/10 | 3613 days | 1% |
| Josh Shwau | 10/10 | 3614 days | 1% |
| Harriet MacMillan | 6/10 | 3681 days | 1% |
| Roeland Driessen | 9/10 | 3723 days | 1% |
| Liliana Zahut | 10/10 | 3754 days | 1% |
| Stefanie | 9/10 | 3998 days | 0% |
| Jan-Peter Stripp | 10/10 | 3998 days | 0% |
| Carla Oyarzun | 10/10 | 4012 days | 0% |
| Paolo Cases | 10/10 | 4012 days | 0% |
| Vera Kreipe | 9/10 | 4035 days | 0% |
| Max Stein | 10/10 | 4049 days | 0% |
| Alineet Gautier | 10/10 | 4089 days | 0% |
| Carina Huhmann | 8/10 | 4094 days | 0% |
| Romina Bolz | 7/10 | 4094 days | 0% |
| Hannah | 10/10 | 4120 days | 0% |
| GN100 | 10/10 | 4241 days | 0% |
| Gale Willcocks | 9/10 | 4388 days | 1% |
| Ken Richardson | 10/10 | 4388 days | 1% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 4388 days | 1% |
| Janina Hoffmann | 10/10 | 4390 days | 1% |
| Florent Corino | 10/10 | 4399 days | 1% |
| Lea Bulle | 9/10 | 4399 days | 1% |
| Carpentier | 8/10 | 4400 days | 1% |
| TJ and Julie Edwards | 10/10 | 4408 days | 1% |
| Kevin Rainey | 8/10 | 4411 days | 1% |
| Jackie and Brian | 8/10 | 4477 days | 1% |
| Jenben | 10/10 | 4515 days | 1% |
| Carly Braddock | 9/10 | 4749 days | 1% |
| Numa Brouimet | 10/10 | 4756 days | 1% |
| Virgil Anabel | 9/10 | 4756 days | 1% |
| suemax | 10/10 | 4760 days | 1% |
| Graeme | 10/10 | 4789 days | 1% |
| Mark Irwin | 9/10 | 5137 days | 1% |
| Richard Brijs | 7/10 | 5137 days | 1% |
| Amanda Wallace | 9/10 | 5144 days | 1% |
| Christian Kamm | 6/10 | 5822 days | 1% |
| S | 8/10 | 5879 days | 1% |
| Frances | 8/10 | 5879 days | 1% |
| Katrina | 8/10 | 5910 days | 1% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Whites Bay Campsite does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
0.80% 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 folk 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
92%
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.