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 Dive Tutukaka.
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.
Dive Tutukaka
Valid Reviews
87 Valid Reviews
The Dive Tutukaka experience has a total of 88 reviews. There are 87 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 87 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 39 |
|
45% |
| 9/10 | 28 |
|
32% |
| 8/10 | 15 |
|
17% |
| 7/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
90.80% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Dive Tutukaka valid reviews is 90.80% and is based on 87 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
72 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 87 valid reviews, the experience has 72 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 72 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 28 |
|
39% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
36% |
| 8/10 | 14 |
|
19% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
89.86% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Dive Tutukaka face-to-face reviews is 89.86% and is based on 72 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
91.18%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barbara McNab | 10/10 | 2529 days | 100% |
| Cherie and Dan | 10/10 | 2869 days | 82% |
| Netta Tyler | 10/10 | 2921 days | 79% |
| Theerada Wongkaew | 10/10 | 2963 days | 76% |
| Gazmira Molina | 8/10 | 3006 days | 73% |
| Jessica Nasstrom | 8/10 | 3013 days | 72% |
| Adeline | 8/10 | 3018 days | 72% |
| Rebecca Pierce | 10/10 | 3044 days | 72% |
| Jane Simmons | 10/10 | 3166 days | 65% |
| Julia Clark | 9/10 | 3234 days | 61% |
| Kristina Breitwieser | 10/10 | 3239 days | 61% |
| Olivier Anciaux | 7/10 | 3252 days | 56% |
| Justine Hoffmann | 9/10 | 3284 days | 58% |
| Ruven Rintelmann | 9/10 | 3289 days | 58% |
| Niels Hoogendooen | 8/10 | 3302 days | 57% |
| Marie Brauherr | 10/10 | 3310 days | 58% |
| Luisa and Hannes | 8/10 | 3314 days | 56% |
| Christian Boudreau | 9/10 | 3332 days | 56% |
| Manuela Opprecht | 7/10 | 3664 days | 36% |
| Damaris Mayer | 3/10 | 3664 days | 21% |
| Sophie Huybrechts | 10/10 | 3706 days | 36% |
| Ally Cook | 9/10 | 3710 days | 35% |
| Jessie Sabine | 9/10 | 4009 days | 19% |
| Katrina Gamby | 10/10 | 4367 days | 0% |
| Sonia Sennane | 10/10 | 4721 days | 27% |
| Melanie Friessen | 9/10 | 4722 days | 27% |
| Barry Baily | 10/10 | 4733 days | 27% |
| Elisabeth | 9/10 | 4742 days | 27% |
| Lotte Foged | 8/10 | 4747 days | 27% |
| Anika | 8/10 | 4748 days | 27% |
| Paul | 8/10 | 4818 days | 27% |
| Elke & Charlotte | 9/10 | 4831 days | 27% |
| Kris Gijbels | 9/10 | 5064 days | 27% |
| Patrick Gloede | 10/10 | 5069 days | 27% |
| Norm and Sky | 9/10 | 5074 days | 27% |
| Roald and Ellen | 9/10 | 5075 days | 27% |
| B Kleven | 10/10 | 5080 days | 27% |
| Ann-Katrine & Sille | 10/10 | 5084 days | 27% |
| Erland Ostberg | 8/10 | 5088 days | 27% |
| Helene Descamps | 9/10 | 5102 days | 27% |
| Heather Deobald | 9/10 | 5104 days | 27% |
| Christina Fischer | 6/10 | 5109 days | 23% |
| Shoe | 10/10 | 5176 days | 27% |
| RobThexton | 10/10 | 5329 days | 27% |
| Martin | 9/10 | 5390 days | 27% |
| cpochin | 10/10 | 5420 days | 27% |
| John Casey | 10/10 | 5432 days | 27% |
| Peter Schmidt | 10/10 | 5451 days | 27% |
| Elisabeth Egerup | 10/10 | 5458 days | 27% |
| Vera Van Schie | 10/10 | 5459 days | 27% |
| Chris Glasg | 10/10 | 5459 days | 27% |
| Klass | 9/10 | 5465 days | 27% |
| Belinda Godhard | 9/10 | 5476 days | 27% |
| Theta | 9/10 | 5479 days | 27% |
| jamesg | 9/10 | 5539 days | 27% |
| Mille Winther | 10/10 | 5552 days | 27% |
| Christine Van Den Berg Michele Imbach | 10/10 | 5564 days | 27% |
| Eilahtan4 | 10/10 | 5602 days | 27% |
| NZDiver | 10/10 | 5663 days | 27% |
| Nikki Turner | 10/10 | 5706 days | 27% |
| Christine Dadd | 8/10 | 5773 days | 27% |
| KatieR | 10/10 | 5783 days | 27% |
| Michael Maddams | 9/10 | 5783 days | 27% |
| Russ C | 8/10 | 5785 days | 27% |
| danam | 10/10 | 5786 days | 27% |
| Katy1 | 9/10 | 5787 days | 27% |
| StefanieGermany | 9/10 | 5802 days | 27% |
| lannie | 9/10 | 5818 days | 27% |
| AbigailB | 10/10 | 5830 days | 27% |
| ReneeA | 10/10 | 5833 days | 27% |
| Ute | 9/10 | 5837 days | 27% |
| Annika | 10/10 | 5849 days | 27% |
| Salick | 9/10 | 5849 days | 27% |
| Thomas | 8/10 | 5856 days | 27% |
| Prentner | 10/10 | 5865 days | 27% |
| Evi | 9/10 | 5890 days | 27% |
| Limor | 8/10 | 5891 days | 27% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 6000 days | 27% |
| Lee Chapman | 10/10 | 6101 days | 27% |
| Jo and Tony | 10/10 | 6177 days | 27% |
| Lara Gema Conde | 5/10 | 6277 days | 20% |
| Trish | 10/10 | 6514 days | 27% |
| Fran | 8/10 | 6515 days | 27% |
| SueLinsk | 10/10 | 6515 days | 27% |
| Rosemary | 9/10 | 6515 days | 27% |
| Martin Christina | 9/10 | 6521 days | 27% |
| Meike | 8/10 | 6548 days | 27% |
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 Dive Tutukaka experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-4.14% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 50 days. However the Dive Tutukaka 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 Dive Tutukaka experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -4.08% |
| 198 | -4.10% |
| 199 | -4.12% |
| 200 | -4.14% |
| 201 | -4.16% |
| 202 | -4.18% |
| 203 | -4.20% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.45% 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
88%
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.