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 Rotorua Tasman Holiday Parks.
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.
96 Valid Reviews
The Rotorua Tasman Holiday Parks experience has a total of 97 reviews. There are 96 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 96 valid reviews:
Rating | Count | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
10/10 | 23 |
|
24% |
9/10 | 27 |
|
28% |
8/10 | 32 |
|
33% |
7/10 | 6 |
|
6% |
6/10 | 6 |
|
6% |
5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
84.58% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Rotorua Tasman Holiday Parks valid reviews is 84.58% and is based on 96 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
54 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 96 valid reviews, the experience has 54 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 54 face-to-face reviews:
Rating | Count | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
10/10 | 15 |
|
28% |
9/10 | 15 |
|
28% |
8/10 | 18 |
|
33% |
7/10 | 2 |
|
4% |
6/10 | 2 |
|
4% |
5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
4/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
1/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
85.19% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Rotorua Tasman Holiday Parks face-to-face reviews is 85.19% and is based on 54 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
86.98%
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 |
---|---|---|---|
Nadia | 8/10 | 69 days | 100% |
Maud Jabouley | 10/10 | 222 days | 99% |
AR | 7/10 | 252 days | 92% |
Ben | 10/10 | 343 days | 95% |
Kate | 9/10 | 1622 days | 7% |
COUSTEIX Guy | 9/10 | 1622 days | 7% |
California caravan first time | 8/10 | 1773 days | 5% |
Su | 9/10 | 1835 days | 5% |
Brian Palmer | 8/10 | 2169 days | 4% |
helen reeve | 8/10 | 2261 days | 4% |
Ingrid Peters | 8/10 | 2261 days | 4% |
Eversons | 8/10 | 2503 days | 4% |
Lene Hendel | 8/10 | 2520 days | 4% |
Shira LA | 9/10 | 2534 days | 4% |
sarah garlough | 6/10 | 2572 days | 3% |
Anna Holloway | 9/10 | 2638 days | 3% |
CARMERS | 10/10 | 2656 days | 3% |
Jon Veitch | 9/10 | 2808 days | 3% |
Joan Robinson | 8/10 | 2827 days | 3% |
Breanna Alexander | 7/10 | 2888 days | 3% |
Rebecca Lindsey | 6/10 | 2898 days | 3% |
Stuart Morgan | 8/10 | 2995 days | 3% |
Shane Mun | 10/10 | 3047 days | 3% |
Catherine Davison | 9/10 | 3169 days | 2% |
Elaine Carter | 10/10 | 3180 days | 2% |
Phillippa McLernon | 8/10 | 3216 days | 2% |
Alan Field | 8/10 | 3326 days | 2% |
Chester Martin | 10/10 | 3402 days | 2% |
John Chilcote | 9/10 | 3498 days | 2% |
Stephanie | 9/10 | 3515 days | 2% |
Christian Jenny | 10/10 | 3518 days | 2% |
Melvin Spear | 9/10 | 3572 days | 2% |
Philippe Lopez | 8/10 | 3604 days | 2% |
holidaymad from Solihull | 7/10 | 3629 days | 1% |
Lea Karl | 10/10 | 3648 days | 1% |
Jurgen Moors | 6/10 | 3665 days | 1% |
David Krasner | 10/10 | 3961 days | 1% |
John Treasure | 6/10 | 3964 days | 1% |
1246km | 7/10 | 4360 days | 0% |
Craig Jones | 9/10 | 4360 days | 0% |
Reinier Timmer | 8/10 | 4373 days | 0% |
Michal | 8/10 | 4377 days | 0% |
Julien Bocherens | 10/10 | 4377 days | 0% |
Wouter Trumpie | 8/10 | 4380 days | 1% |
Marian | 6/10 | 4393 days | 1% |
Adam Hassan | 8/10 | 4396 days | 1% |
Laurits and Bettina | 8/10 | 4398 days | 1% |
Liz Marquart Scholtz | 8/10 | 4402 days | 1% |
Julia Ramseier | 10/10 | 4403 days | 1% |
Christian | 10/10 | 4403 days | 1% |
Megan Child | 9/10 | 4408 days | 1% |
Ruben Kunze | 1/10 | 4656 days | 0% |
Be Groen | 8/10 | 4658 days | 1% |
Patricia Fearon | 10/10 | 4678 days | 1% |
Hans Erik Munch | 8/10 | 4693 days | 1% |
Sarah and Soren | 9/10 | 4763 days | 1% |
Marc & Pauline | 9/10 | 4763 days | 1% |
Alice Bastiman | 9/10 | 5009 days | 1% |
Schroeder | 8/10 | 5020 days | 1% |
Leanne Shepherd | 8/10 | 5024 days | 1% |
lyndavid | 9/10 | 5032 days | 1% |
Justin Pearce | 8/10 | 5036 days | 1% |
Peter & Margo Boullin | 10/10 | 5040 days | 1% |
Walter Peters | 10/10 | 5044 days | 1% |
Annie Pennington | 10/10 | 5047 days | 1% |
Phillips | 8/10 | 5047 days | 1% |
Jansen | 9/10 | 5047 days | 1% |
Angela | 10/10 | 5048 days | 1% |
Philipp Rau | 9/10 | 5051 days | 1% |
Eva Stauderova | 10/10 | 5051 days | 1% |
G R Vangerven | 9/10 | 5053 days | 1% |
Igor Filart | 9/10 | 5055 days | 1% |
D Oostrum | 9/10 | 5055 days | 1% |
T Chapman | 7/10 | 5055 days | 1% |
De Blaeij | 8/10 | 5058 days | 1% |
Michelle Booty | 8/10 | 5059 days | 1% |
Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5152 days | 1% |
Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 5183 days | 1% |
bqueen_111 | 10/10 | 5183 days | 1% |
BigSis | 8/10 | 5244 days | 1% |
Silke Seemann | 10/10 | 5388 days | 1% |
Lamb | 9/10 | 5424 days | 1% |
mariekef | 7/10 | 5471 days | 1% |
hofstetterf | 9/10 | 5485 days | 1% |
Anayara Diaz Torres | 6/10 | 5498 days | 1% |
Geoff Renshaw | 4/10 | 5498 days | 1% |
Fer Bonsel | 8/10 | 5510 days | 1% |
ulrichk | 10/10 | 5604 days | 1% |
michellew | 9/10 | 5679 days | 1% |
GemmaC | 8/10 | 5720 days | 1% |
neeltjec | 9/10 | 5731 days | 1% |
desl | 9/10 | 5731 days | 1% |
Martien van Brakel | 9/10 | 5731 days | 1% |
Viktoria Stoffel | 10/10 | 5738 days | 1% |
DavidMurray | 10/10 | 5765 days | 1% |
RichardE | 8/10 | 5766 days | 1% |
Several adjustments to the weighted average are added to improve relevancy and credibility. These adjustments apply equally to all experiences that meet the criteria.
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 Rotorua Tasman Holiday Parks experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
-0.77% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 42 days. However the Rotorua Tasman Holiday Parks 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 Rotorua Tasman Holiday Parks experience has been adjusted for 38 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
Days | Adjustment |
---|---|
… | … |
35 | -0.71% |
36 | -0.73% |
37 | -0.75% |
38 | -0.77% |
39 | -0.79% |
40 | -0.81% |
41 | -0.83% |
… | … |
1.59% 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.
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.