Hey, 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 Spa Park.
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.
Spa Park
Valid Reviews
89 Valid Reviews
The Spa Park experience has a total of 90 reviews. There are 89 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 1 invalid review 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 | 36 |
|
40% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
29% |
| 8/10 | 16 |
|
18% |
| 7/10 | 10 |
|
11% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
89.44% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Spa Park valid reviews is 89.44% 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
81 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 81 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 81 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 34 |
|
42% |
| 9/10 | 23 |
|
28% |
| 8/10 | 15 |
|
19% |
| 7/10 | 8 |
|
10% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
89.75% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Spa Park face-to-face reviews is 89.75% and is based on 81 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
93.29%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Léo | 10/10 | 742 days | 100% |
| C J B | 10/10 | 2476 days | 5% |
| Felix Koehler | 10/10 | 2981 days | 3% |
| Lucie Revay | 7/10 | 3003 days | 3% |
| Simon Schatz | 10/10 | 3273 days | 2% |
| Nadja Guiliani | 7/10 | 3278 days | 2% |
| Jamie Serieux | 8/10 | 3281 days | 2% |
| Philipp | 7/10 | 3287 days | 2% |
| George Bellwood | 9/10 | 3289 days | 2% |
| Sarah Dorsett | 8/10 | 3289 days | 2% |
| Lewis Cole | 8/10 | 3291 days | 2% |
| Robert Klub | 10/10 | 3310 days | 2% |
| Johannes Koch | 10/10 | 3312 days | 2% |
| Clara Loizeil | 7/10 | 3318 days | 2% |
| Patrick Veber | 8/10 | 3318 days | 2% |
| Fabian | 4/10 | 3322 days | 1% |
| Maartje | 9/10 | 3323 days | 2% |
| Anders Hauke | 9/10 | 3324 days | 2% |
| Alex Reeve | 10/10 | 3331 days | 2% |
| Eric Hertort | 10/10 | 3335 days | 2% |
| Christian Meyer | 10/10 | 3335 days | 2% |
| Melissa Fuster | 8/10 | 3339 days | 2% |
| Mikkel Palleson | 10/10 | 3339 days | 2% |
| Marek Dvonsky | 8/10 | 3340 days | 2% |
| Sam | 8/10 | 3346 days | 2% |
| Gregor | 10/10 | 3351 days | 2% |
| Shany Maydan | 10/10 | 3377 days | 2% |
| Sebastian and Susanna | 9/10 | 3384 days | 2% |
| Jade Cownley | 9/10 | 3677 days | 1% |
| Pierre Planchez | 9/10 | 3696 days | 1% |
| Erik Hafuer | 9/10 | 3732 days | 1% |
| Polly Rider | 9/10 | 3758 days | 1% |
| Lea Darotchetche | 8/10 | 3919 days | 0% |
| Julia Schabenberger | 9/10 | 3997 days | 0% |
| Lola | 10/10 | 3997 days | 0% |
| Alisa | 9/10 | 3997 days | 0% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 3997 days | 0% |
| Cecilia Anderson | 9/10 | 4000 days | 0% |
| Mattias | 8/10 | 4000 days | 0% |
| Guillaume Yedoux | 8/10 | 4000 days | 0% |
| Zuzana Holubova | 8/10 | 4000 days | 0% |
| Jenny Finch | 9/10 | 4025 days | 0% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 10/10 | 4026 days | 0% |
| Florent Bouillon | 8/10 | 4026 days | 0% |
| Stephen Revah | 9/10 | 4026 days | 0% |
| Hadler | 7/10 | 4030 days | 0% |
| Callum | 9/10 | 4041 days | 0% |
| Max Meternich | 10/10 | 4043 days | 0% |
| Philip Donachie | 9/10 | 4045 days | 0% |
| Andreas Jung | 10/10 | 4053 days | 0% |
| Jesseca Klausch | 10/10 | 4055 days | 0% |
| Vincent Schaeflier | 9/10 | 4055 days | 0% |
| Victor Herranz | 10/10 | 4060 days | 0% |
| Nimh Oudhof | 10/10 | 4061 days | 0% |
| Luca Willensrock | 9/10 | 4073 days | 0% |
| Arnaud Memay | 7/10 | 4081 days | 0% |
| Julia Ahrend | 10/10 | 4091 days | 0% |
| Molly Ladd | 8/10 | 4390 days | 1% |
| Missy and Chaz | 10/10 | 4404 days | 1% |
| Pink | 8/10 | 4427 days | 1% |
| Johannes Mullner | 10/10 | 4749 days | 1% |
| Jessica Marling | 10/10 | 4749 days | 1% |
| Camille and Lucie | 9/10 | 4750 days | 1% |
| Jaroslav Gajdos | 10/10 | 4762 days | 1% |
| Carl & Desiree Potter | 9/10 | 4771 days | 1% |
| Yves & Sylvia | 7/10 | 4773 days | 1% |
| Andy Bridgman | 8/10 | 4773 days | 1% |
| Maximilian Heller | 9/10 | 4780 days | 1% |
| Luis Valenzuela | 7/10 | 4781 days | 1% |
| FamilyGuy | 9/10 | 4819 days | 1% |
| Clement_Weather | 7/10 | 4819 days | 1% |
| N smith | 9/10 | 4819 days | 1% |
| Annie | 10/10 | 4850 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5088 days | 1% |
| Gema | 9/10 | 5108 days | 1% |
| Aimee Pollett | 7/10 | 5115 days | 1% |
| Vanessa Hanzen | 10/10 | 5117 days | 1% |
| Rissa W | 9/10 | 5125 days | 1% |
| Natthien Le Gall | 8/10 | 5126 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Stones | 10/10 | 5127 days | 1% |
| Matthijs Muijsers | 9/10 | 5146 days | 1% |
| hooperuk | 10/10 | 5459 days | 1% |
| John N | 10/10 | 5484 days | 1% |
| Blair Malcolm | 10/10 | 5499 days | 1% |
| Hailey & Fin | 10/10 | 5530 days | 1% |
| varenaee | 9/10 | 5565 days | 1% |
| Pieter Neeleman | 10/10 | 5592 days | 1% |
| WiebkeS | 10/10 | 5840 days | 1% |
| Lars Haf | 10/10 | 5842 days | 1% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Spa Park does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
0.61% 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
94%
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.