Ranking Score Explained

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 Fiordland National 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.

Cymen Crick's avatar

Cymen Crick

Rankers Owner

Fiordland National Park

Valid Reviews

50 Valid Reviews

The Fiordland National Park experience has a total of 51 reviews. There are 50 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 50 valid reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 17
34%
9/10 19
38%
8/10 9
18%
7/10 5
10%
6/10 0
0%
5/10 0
0%
4/10 0
0%
3/10 0
0%
2/10 0
0%
1/10 0
0%

89.60% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Fiordland National Park valid reviews is 89.60% and is based on 50 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

50 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 50 valid reviews, the experience has 50 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.

Below is the distribution of ratings for the 50 face-to-face reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 17
34%
9/10 19
38%
8/10 9
18%
7/10 5
10%
6/10 0
0%
5/10 0
0%
4/10 0
0%
3/10 0
0%
2/10 0
0%
1/10 0
0%

89.60% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Fiordland National Park face-to-face reviews is 89.60% and is based on 50 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.

Weighted Average

87.94%

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
Danica Vrsaljko 7/10 3645 days 95%
Markus Johannes 7/10 3645 days 95%
Coralie Ambrosino 8/10 3646 days 100%
Rebecca Wharton 8/10 3674 days 96%
Bart Hanssen 7/10 3727 days 84%
Kilian Vos 9/10 3734 days 89%
Bartlomiej Berger 10/10 3754 days 87%
Antoine Vernay 9/10 3754 days 86%
Anja Weppler 10/10 3991 days 54%
Jacques Revel 9/10 3994 days 53%
Karen Garvin 10/10 3994 days 53%
jefft 9/10 3994 days 53%
Simeon W 8/10 4006 days 51%
Henrik Bours 9/10 4008 days 51%
Svenja Trubenbach 10/10 4008 days 51%
thibaut vernelle 8/10 4022 days 48%
Julia Seiffert 10/10 4025 days 49%
Daniel Robledo 9/10 4025 days 49%
Austin Johns 9/10 4026 days 48%
Joris Giullemot 10/10 4026 days 49%
Olivier Carval 9/10 4026 days 48%
Sagi 8/10 4028 days 48%
Maria = Moller Hansen 10/10 4035 days 48%
David Forman 9/10 4039 days 47%
Tobias Gehring 10/10 4043 days 47%
Simon Tanguy 8/10 4043 days 46%
Xavier 9/10 4045 days 46%
Matusala Habtemariam 10/10 4048 days 46%
M K 9/10 4065 days 43%
Ludvig Fagerstrom 10/10 4071 days 43%
Sara Williams 10/10 4079 days 42%
Thomas Roche 9/10 4085 days 40%
Evyatar Karni 9/10 4086 days 40%
Pierre Cinquin 8/10 4315 days 8%
Christin Woelk 10/10 4353 days 3%
Sven Woelk 10/10 4353 days 3%
Tim Vennewold 9/10 4376 days 0%
Yves Vennewald 10/10 4376 days 0%
Jiri van Straelper 9/10 4376 days 0%
Sabisch Moritz 8/10 4389 days 69%
Rob Cadmus 9/10 4392 days 70%
Kate Glover 10/10 4392 days 71%
Raquel 8/10 4396 days 69%
Fernando Martin 7/10 4396 days 66%
Francis Runge 9/10 4403 days 70%
Katharina Pape 9/10 4477 days 70%
Jon Barratt 9/10 4485 days 70%
Meryem Buchwitz 10/10 4492 days 71%
Rena and Kirsten 7/10 4493 days 66%
Abee and Suess 10/10 4496 days 71%

Adjustments

No Adjustment

Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Fiordland National Park does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.

Balancing Adjustment

1.30% 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

89%

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.