Hi there, 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 Trout Pools Reserve.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at email@example.com. We don't believe this is perfect or complete so we're always interested in ways we might make improvements.
15 Valid Reviews
The Trout Pools Reserve experience has a total of 15 valid reviews. There are no 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.
Within these 15 valid reviews, the experience has 2 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 15 valid reviews:
The raw data average (mean) for all the Trout Pools Reserve valid reviews is 68.67% and is based on 15 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
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.
|Carl Bright||10/10||155 days||100%|
|Fifi and Jay||7/10||1287 days||3%|
|Christine Allgaier||4/10||1384 days||2%|
|Mark Haydon||6/10||1401 days||3%|
|Megan Jurgensmeyer||7/10||1467 days||3%|
|Chas Bronson||9/10||1477 days||2%|
|Michelle Smit||8/10||1616 days||3%|
|Jon Puttick||7/10||1761 days||2%|
|Tomas Soldat||5/10||1798 days||2%|
|Bob Fontaine||5/10||1978 days||1%|
|arnaud paquet||7/10||2560 days||1%|
|Will and Taylor||6/10||2894 days||0%|
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Trout Pools Reserve does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
The final ranking score once rounding has been applied. This value is cached and recalculated each day. Therefore it may not be precisely accurate based on the other values presented.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at firstname.lastname@example.org.