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 Huka/Aratiatia Rapids Scenic Reserve.

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

Huka/Aratiatia Rapids Scenic Reserve

Valid Reviews

69 Valid Reviews

The Huka/Aratiatia Rapids Scenic Reserve experience has a total of 70 reviews. There are 69 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 69 valid reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 18
26%
9/10 15
22%
8/10 20
29%
7/10 13
19%
6/10 1
1%
5/10 1
1%
4/10 1
1%
3/10 0
0%
2/10 0
0%
1/10 0
0%

84.20% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Huka/Aratiatia Rapids Scenic Reserve valid reviews is 84.20% and is based on 69 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.

Weighted Average

84.85%

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
Kirsty 10/10 38 days 100%
Maguelonne 4/10 69 days 65%
Elodie 10/10 191 days 98%
RGill 8/10 222 days 95%
Miriam 10/10 252 days 96%
Felicia 7/10 252 days 90%
Marine 8/10 283 days 94%
Graeme mac 10/10 342 days 93%
Mladen Savov 10/10 342 days 93%
K M 9/10 373 days 91%
Mathieu 10/10 434 days 89%
Milly Struthers 8/10 464 days 86%
Aaron 7/10 464 days 82%
Walvins 10/10 464 days 88%
A King 8/10 526 days 82%
AJC 5/10 526 days 64%
Holly 7/10 587 days 75%
Valg 8/10 617 days 77%
Holly 9/10 648 days 75%
Linda 8/10 677 days 72%
Dale Robinson 8/10 739 days 67%
Agnes 9/10 739 days 68%
Gunnar&Maria 8/10 739 days 67%
Pickles 8/10 769 days 65%
Mayla 8/10 769 days 65%
Marie Perret 9/10 800 days 63%
Maartje 7/10 830 days 56%
Fluid 10/10 830 days 60%
Henry 9/10 861 days 57%
J Ryder 10/10 892 days 54%
KiwiSauce 7/10 892 days 51%
Jolanda Krikke 8/10 892 days 53%
Paul 10/10 953 days 48%
Julie 9/10 953 days 48%
Christa 9/10 953 days 48%
Paul 9/10 953 days 48%
Shel 6/10 983 days 39%
wvdbos 7/10 983 days 42%
HJR 10/10 983 days 45%
Matthew 9/10 1042 days 39%
Isa 9/10 1042 days 39%
Haze 7/10 1042 days 37%
Willow 9/10 1073 days 36%
Paige Hayward 8/10 1134 days 31%
BerryD 9/10 1195 days 27%
Leet 8/10 1257 days 22%
Curtis 10/10 1318 days 19%
Juni 9/10 1438 days 13%
Keybags 10/10 1744 days 5%
Tessie 9/10 1772 days 4%
Rey 7/10 1834 days 4%
Natalie 10/10 1987 days 4%
Carl Bright 10/10 1987 days 4%
Dave 8/10 2017 days 4%
Lauren 10/10 2048 days 4%
Peter 9/10 2169 days 4%
Dennis Rijbroek 7/10 2291 days 3%
Adam 7/10 2291 days 3%
Mark Jarvis 7/10 2291 days 3%
Clare & Gerry 10/10 2475 days 3%
Pat Burns 7/10 2475 days 3%
Marion & Leonie 8/10 2503 days 3%
Anni 8/10 2534 days 3%
jofa972 8/10 2809 days 2%
Judy Aspinall 7/10 3159 days 2%
Beth Goodrich 8/10 3429 days 1%
Michal 10/10 3788 days 0%
Berni Hart 8/10 3935 days 0%
Cherie Marshall 8/10 4000 days 0%

Adjustments

No Adjustment

Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Huka/Aratiatia Rapids Scenic Reserve does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.

Balancing Adjustment

1.85% 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

87%

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.