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 Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping.
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.
Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping
Valid Reviews
89 Valid Reviews
The Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping experience has a total of 93 reviews. There are 89 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 4 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 89 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 52 |
|
58% |
| 9/10 | 21 |
|
24% |
| 8/10 | 13 |
|
15% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 6/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
93.48% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping valid reviews is 93.48% and is based on 89 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
4 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 89 valid reviews, the experience has 4 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 4 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 2 |
|
50% |
| 9/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 8/10 | 2 |
|
50% |
| 7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
90.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping face-to-face reviews is 90.00% and is based on 4 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
95.89%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pat | 10/10 | 266 days | 100% |
| Sabine | 10/10 | 326 days | 98% |
| Rachel | 6/10 | 326 days | 84% |
| Tine Warner | 10/10 | 357 days | 97% |
| Ashley + Mike | 10/10 | 357 days | 97% |
| Fabian Ullrich | 10/10 | 387 days | 95% |
| Rian Caccianiga | 10/10 | 387 days | 95% |
| K Robertson | 10/10 | 418 days | 94% |
| Marie Perret | 10/10 | 418 days | 94% |
| Katie | 10/10 | 601 days | 83% |
| James Kidston | 10/10 | 632 days | 80% |
| Szilveszter | 10/10 | 632 days | 80% |
| Claire Jones | 10/10 | 632 days | 80% |
| Charlie | 10/10 | 632 days | 80% |
| Manuel Mayer | 10/10 | 660 days | 78% |
| Wayne | 10/10 | 660 days | 78% |
| Arie | 9/10 | 660 days | 77% |
| Kirsty | 8/10 | 691 days | 74% |
| Jesper | 10/10 | 691 days | 76% |
| Laura Jarry | 10/10 | 783 days | 67% |
| cearon | 9/10 | 935 days | 51% |
| MB | 7/10 | 1239 days | 23% |
| Patrícia | 9/10 | 1331 days | 19% |
| Ashleigh | 10/10 | 1362 days | 17% |
| Thomas | 10/10 | 1421 days | 14% |
| Finlay | 10/10 | 1513 days | 10% |
| Stefan Hohmann | 8/10 | 1727 days | 5% |
| Liz Wade | 8/10 | 1755 days | 5% |
| Kim | 8/10 | 1756 days | 5% |
| James Murphy | 10/10 | 1787 days | 5% |
| Dil | 10/10 | 1787 days | 5% |
| harre medemblik | 8/10 | 1848 days | 4% |
| Dennis Rijbroek | 10/10 | 1908 days | 4% |
| Mik Jennings | 9/10 | 1908 days | 4% |
| Anselm | 9/10 | 1939 days | 4% |
| Adrian and Tanya | 10/10 | 1970 days | 4% |
| Kate | 9/10 | 2031 days | 4% |
| Tash & Laura | 9/10 | 2121 days | 4% |
| Fabienne&Dustin | 10/10 | 2121 days | 4% |
| Alis | 10/10 | 2121 days | 4% |
| Emma | 10/10 | 2121 days | 4% |
| Nik | 9/10 | 2121 days | 4% |
| seph | 9/10 | 2152 days | 4% |
| Jan Z. | 10/10 | 2152 days | 4% |
| Gerrit | 10/10 | 2152 days | 4% |
| M Elsten | 10/10 | 2152 days | 4% |
| Jason | 10/10 | 2183 days | 4% |
| Agathe | 10/10 | 2213 days | 4% |
| Ali | 9/10 | 2244 days | 4% |
| Xiaoming Guo | 10/10 | 2244 days | 4% |
| Grizzly Girl | 10/10 | 2244 days | 4% |
| Gio | 10/10 | 2304 days | 3% |
| Stefano Clerici | 10/10 | 2335 days | 3% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 2365 days | 3% |
| L + J | 10/10 | 2396 days | 3% |
| Florian | 10/10 | 2427 days | 3% |
| Boguslaw MAKIELLO | 10/10 | 2441 days | 2% |
| M A Pelton | 9/10 | 2483 days | 3% |
| UK 50-something couple | 8/10 | 2486 days | 3% |
| Alyson Reid | 9/10 | 2500 days | 3% |
| Ewan Evans | 9/10 | 2550 days | 3% |
| Lucy Watson | 10/10 | 2577 days | 3% |
| Mairead Bushe | 10/10 | 2582 days | 3% |
| Artemis | 9/10 | 2795 days | 2% |
| Naira Prudencio | 10/10 | 2821 days | 2% |
| Mailhos Cécile | 10/10 | 2826 days | 2% |
| Caryn Grosvenor | 10/10 | 2845 days | 2% |
| Catherine Kay | 8/10 | 2866 days | 2% |
| Svetlana L | 10/10 | 2876 days | 2% |
| Rebecca Lindsey | 9/10 | 2881 days | 2% |
| Neil Warnock | 10/10 | 2912 days | 2% |
| Shelly Stanchuk | 9/10 | 2942 days | 2% |
| Becky and James | 10/10 | 2976 days | 2% |
| Mikael Torres | 9/10 | 3035 days | 2% |
| Pamela Hoffman | 8/10 | 3128 days | 2% |
| Daniel Fuell | 10/10 | 3135 days | 2% |
| John-Jozef Proczka | 9/10 | 3217 days | 2% |
| Loic Journet | 8/10 | 3224 days | 1% |
| Janneke Hekhuis | 8/10 | 3228 days | 1% |
| Max Brunner | 9/10 | 3271 days | 1% |
| Ruth P | 8/10 | 3279 days | 1% |
| Nurul Nadia Naziron | 9/10 | 3343 days | 1% |
| Lotte Spors | 10/10 | 3431 days | 1% |
| Chiara Magelli | 10/10 | 3444 days | 1% |
| Philip Mattes | 9/10 | 3516 days | 1% |
| Claude Nobs | 6/10 | 3613 days | 1% |
| Simon Mehlmann | 10/10 | 3896 days | 0% |
| Camille Gagnant | 8/10 | 3968 days | 0% |
| Amanda Neall | 8/10 | 5007 days | 0% |
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 Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-4.05% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 43 days. However the Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping 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 Juno Hall Backpackers and Camping experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -3.99% |
| 198 | -4.01% |
| 199 | -4.03% |
| 200 | -4.05% |
| 201 | -4.07% |
| 202 | -4.09% |
| 203 | -4.11% |
| … | … |
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 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
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.