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 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
71 Valid Reviews
The Whites Bay Campsite experience has a total of 74 reviews. There are 71 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 71 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 28 |
|
39% |
| 9/10 | 22 |
|
31% |
| 8/10 | 14 |
|
20% |
| 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 71 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 71 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
91.82%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Edward | 9/10 | 30 days | 100% |
| Savannah | 8/10 | 61 days | 99% |
| Sue | 10/10 | 336 days | 95% |
| Heloise | 9/10 | 365 days | 92% |
| Katy | 9/10 | 396 days | 91% |
| Ross Moles | 10/10 | 671 days | 75% |
| Scott D | 9/10 | 822 days | 61% |
| Lance Broyden | 9/10 | 883 days | 56% |
| Marrieke | 10/10 | 1095 days | 36% |
| Maddi | 10/10 | 1126 days | 33% |
| AMR | 10/10 | 1157 days | 31% |
| Miriam | 10/10 | 1522 days | 10% |
| Michaela | 8/10 | 1918 days | 5% |
| Andrius | 9/10 | 2132 days | 4% |
| Clare & Gerry | 8/10 | 2163 days | 4% |
| Kim | 8/10 | 2375 days | 4% |
| Rachel Mudge | 8/10 | 2548 days | 4% |
| Bec | 10/10 | 2581 days | 4% |
| Rob & Colleen Elwood | 9/10 | 2740 days | 3% |
| Linda Livett | 9/10 | 2893 days | 3% |
| Thue Thomasen | 10/10 | 2925 days | 3% |
| Greg Thompson | 9/10 | 3013 days | 3% |
| Jeremy | 9/10 | 3025 days | 3% |
| Kate Thornber | 10/10 | 3040 days | 3% |
| Laurie | 7/10 | 3043 days | 2% |
| Joanne Butfield | 8/10 | 3156 days | 2% |
| Arthur | 9/10 | 3204 days | 2% |
| Michael Miles | 10/10 | 3241 days | 2% |
| Esther M | 8/10 | 3267 days | 2% |
| Dave Horry | 9/10 | 3287 days | 2% |
| Toby Regan | 9/10 | 3311 days | 2% |
| Alva Feldmeier | 7/10 | 3546 days | 2% |
| Steffen Paul | 7/10 | 3573 days | 1% |
| Josh Shwau | 10/10 | 3574 days | 2% |
| Harriet MacMillan | 6/10 | 3640 days | 1% |
| Roeland Driessen | 9/10 | 3683 days | 1% |
| Liliana Zahut | 10/10 | 3714 days | 1% |
| Stefanie | 9/10 | 3957 days | 1% |
| Jan-Peter Stripp | 10/10 | 3957 days | 1% |
| Carla Oyarzun | 10/10 | 3971 days | 1% |
| Paolo Cases | 10/10 | 3971 days | 1% |
| Vera Kreipe | 9/10 | 3994 days | 1% |
| Max Stein | 10/10 | 4008 days | 1% |
| Alineet Gautier | 10/10 | 4048 days | 1% |
| Carina Huhmann | 8/10 | 4053 days | 1% |
| Romina Bolz | 7/10 | 4053 days | 1% |
| Hannah | 10/10 | 4079 days | 1% |
| GN100 | 10/10 | 4201 days | 0% |
| Gale Willcocks | 9/10 | 4347 days | 0% |
| Ken Richardson | 10/10 | 4347 days | 0% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 4347 days | 0% |
| Janina Hoffmann | 10/10 | 4349 days | 0% |
| Florent Corino | 10/10 | 4358 days | 0% |
| Lea Bulle | 9/10 | 4358 days | 0% |
| Carpentier | 8/10 | 4359 days | 0% |
| TJ and Julie Edwards | 10/10 | 4367 days | 0% |
| Kevin Rainey | 8/10 | 4370 days | 0% |
| Jackie and Brian | 8/10 | 4436 days | 1% |
| Jenben | 10/10 | 4474 days | 1% |
| Carly Braddock | 9/10 | 4708 days | 1% |
| Numa Brouimet | 10/10 | 4715 days | 1% |
| Virgil Anabel | 9/10 | 4715 days | 1% |
| suemax | 10/10 | 4719 days | 1% |
| Graeme | 10/10 | 4748 days | 1% |
| Mark Irwin | 9/10 | 5096 days | 1% |
| Richard Brijs | 7/10 | 5096 days | 1% |
| Amanda Wallace | 9/10 | 5103 days | 1% |
| Christian Kamm | 6/10 | 5781 days | 1% |
| S | 8/10 | 5838 days | 1% |
| Frances | 8/10 | 5838 days | 1% |
| Katrina | 8/10 | 5869 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
0.77% 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
93%
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.