Hey, 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 Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday 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.
Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
138 Valid Reviews
The Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday Park experience has a total of 143 reviews. There are 138 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 5 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.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 138 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 19 |
|
14% |
| 9/10 | 41 |
|
30% |
| 8/10 | 35 |
|
25% |
| 7/10 | 18 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 10 |
|
7% |
| 5/10 | 6 |
|
4% |
| 4/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
78.48% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday Park valid reviews is 78.48% and is based on 138 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
46 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 138 valid reviews, the experience has 46 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 46 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 4 |
|
9% |
| 9/10 | 14 |
|
30% |
| 8/10 | 15 |
|
33% |
| 7/10 | 6 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 4 |
|
9% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
4% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
79.57% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 79.57% and is based on 46 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
71.14%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diana | 5/10 | 207 days | 79% |
| Cafe | 10/10 | 329 days | 100% |
| Charlotte Parsons | 4/10 | 603 days | 55% |
| Elizabeth | 7/10 | 634 days | 76% |
| Jaye Manso | 6/10 | 634 days | 71% |
| Marg Dale | 8/10 | 665 days | 78% |
| Ming | 3/10 | 695 days | 42% |
| Al | 3/10 | 787 days | 37% |
| Vit Miller | 6/10 | 815 days | 57% |
| Emily | 7/10 | 907 days | 52% |
| Kirsty Speers | 9/10 | 907 days | 56% |
| Emma | 9/10 | 968 days | 49% |
| Hannah and Matthew | 7/10 | 999 days | 43% |
| Linda | 9/10 | 1760 days | 5% |
| COUSTEIX Guy | 5/10 | 1760 days | 4% |
| Bert | 9/10 | 1973 days | 5% |
| William | 10/10 | 2003 days | 5% |
| Cheryle Harkins | 10/10 | 2034 days | 5% |
| Kate Shields | 4/10 | 2034 days | 3% |
| Lausgrott from Germany | 9/10 | 2064 days | 4% |
| Leonardo Cantalice | 8/10 | 2126 days | 4% |
| CC | 10/10 | 2217 days | 4% |
| Pedro | 3/10 | 2248 days | 2% |
| David Hart | 6/10 | 2248 days | 3% |
| Stefan Miedzinski | 4/10 | 2248 days | 3% |
| Anders Knutsson | 5/10 | 2306 days | 3% |
| Johannes Stahl | 2/10 | 2307 days | 2% |
| Elke fuenfstueck | 9/10 | 2338 days | 4% |
| Rainer Schimpf | 8/10 | 2338 days | 4% |
| Jonas R. | 9/10 | 2368 days | 4% |
| James & Kerry | 7/10 | 2368 days | 4% |
| Emma Higgins | 7/10 | 2398 days | 3% |
| Jim Barrell | 7/10 | 2429 days | 3% |
| Kimberly | 9/10 | 2429 days | 4% |
| Pauline Lewis | 8/10 | 2460 days | 4% |
| Stefano Clerici | 7/10 | 2491 days | 3% |
| Laidler family adventures | 10/10 | 2552 days | 3% |
| Bex & Jake | 8/10 | 2552 days | 3% |
| Wanda P | 10/10 | 2582 days | 3% |
| Ben H | 9/10 | 2613 days | 3% |
| Rikke Hessellund, Denmark | 9/10 | 2613 days | 3% |
| Robert Gatford | 7/10 | 2637 days | 3% |
| Helen Bond | 10/10 | 2672 days | 3% |
| Desiree | 10/10 | 2703 days | 3% |
| Ewan Evans | 7/10 | 2705 days | 3% |
| Eddie Howell | 9/10 | 2708 days | 3% |
| Sandra Wilson-Ryke | 8/10 | 2740 days | 3% |
| Nadene Wheatley | 7/10 | 2743 days | 3% |
| Javier Mimbrera | 9/10 | 2793 days | 3% |
| Geoff Steele | 8/10 | 2793 days | 3% |
| Stacey Maynard | 10/10 | 2812 days | 3% |
| Leonie Scholten | 10/10 | 2813 days | 3% |
| Matt Harrison | 8/10 | 2910 days | 3% |
| Jamie McDonald | 8/10 | 2939 days | 3% |
| Tania A | 9/10 | 2972 days | 3% |
| Anna Brzezińska Talaga | 8/10 | 2977 days | 2% |
| Eva Salacroup | 9/10 | 2981 days | 2% |
| Arslan Ahmad | 9/10 | 2988 days | 2% |
| Ernst Mayerhofer | 10/10 | 3094 days | 2% |
| Philipp Jahn | 9/10 | 3137 days | 2% |
| Becky and James | 9/10 | 3138 days | 2% |
| Jeffrey Ross | 10/10 | 3141 days | 2% |
| Frans Van Schie | 9/10 | 3146 days | 2% |
| Tony Waters | 9/10 | 3158 days | 2% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 3189 days | 2% |
| Mikael Torres | 8/10 | 3191 days | 2% |
| Beth Goodrich | 10/10 | 3202 days | 2% |
| Peter Barker | 8/10 | 3321 days | 2% |
| Sharon | 1/10 | 3324 days | 1% |
| Corina Sima | 9/10 | 3341 days | 2% |
| Staffan Johansson | 10/10 | 3354 days | 2% |
| Sven Hasselberger | 7/10 | 3384 days | 2% |
| Patrick Austin | 7/10 | 3403 days | 2% |
| Michael | 6/10 | 3468 days | 1% |
| Emily C | 9/10 | 3660 days | 1% |
| Mathieu Flechelle | 8/10 | 3767 days | 1% |
| Maren | 10/10 | 3802 days | 1% |
| Christopher Lambert-Züberlein | 7/10 | 3809 days | 1% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 3952 days | 0% |
| Pete | 9/10 | 4013 days | 0% |
| Henry Thiel | 8/10 | 4114 days | 0% |
| Philipp Haass | 5/10 | 4133 days | 0% |
| Fiona Bygrave | 6/10 | 4133 days | 0% |
| Héléna Degres | 9/10 | 4164 days | 0% |
| Bertiethebus | 8/10 | 4408 days | 1% |
| ramy | 9/10 | 4408 days | 1% |
| Phil & Laura | 8/10 | 4467 days | 1% |
| Philip Gibbons | 8/10 | 4498 days | 1% |
| Paul Lawrence | 8/10 | 4527 days | 1% |
| Cennart ud Brock | 8/10 | 4528 days | 1% |
| lindamoore | 9/10 | 4529 days | 1% |
| Andrew K | 9/10 | 4529 days | 1% |
| Jenben | 8/10 | 4559 days | 1% |
| Roshnie | 9/10 | 4559 days | 1% |
| Romla | 8/10 | 4811 days | 1% |
| Ronald Veldman | 8/10 | 4811 days | 1% |
| Dirk & Marlene | 8/10 | 4816 days | 1% |
| Andreas Kofod-Hansen | 9/10 | 4818 days | 1% |
| Christina | 7/10 | 4819 days | 0% |
| Ellen Jacobs | 9/10 | 4831 days | 1% |
| Tim Clark | 9/10 | 4832 days | 1% |
| polzeath | 6/10 | 4833 days | 1% |
| Hans Bos | 9/10 | 4896 days | 1% |
| Helen & Laurence | 8/10 | 4902 days | 1% |
| Willem & Lilian | 6/10 | 4904 days | 0% |
| bdel1963 | 9/10 | 5109 days | 1% |
| English_Campers | 9/10 | 5139 days | 1% |
| Jon_and_Family | 8/10 | 5139 days | 1% |
| Lindsey Clough | 4/10 | 5148 days | 0% |
| female40 | 5/10 | 5155 days | 0% |
| Michael Howat | 8/10 | 5160 days | 1% |
| Haan Begerian | 8/10 | 5184 days | 1% |
| Rob | 8/10 | 5185 days | 1% |
| Seifert | 10/10 | 5190 days | 1% |
| Hans De Bruin | 8/10 | 5198 days | 1% |
| Charli Skinner | 10/10 | 5465 days | 1% |
| Remro | 9/10 | 5523 days | 1% |
| Mark | 7/10 | 5543 days | 0% |
| Alzbeta Czech | 9/10 | 5549 days | 1% |
| Irene Turley | 6/10 | 5558 days | 0% |
| Ines Diana | 9/10 | 5562 days | 1% |
| Pizzanelli | 10/10 | 5562 days | 1% |
| Conor Coyle | 8/10 | 5580 days | 1% |
| deanlaw | 9/10 | 5608 days | 1% |
| usigmund | 8/10 | 5614 days | 1% |
| pthreadgood | 6/10 | 5623 days | 0% |
| Volker Jåkel | 5/10 | 5632 days | 0% |
| clairet | 7/10 | 5734 days | 0% |
| Jennifer Owen | 10/10 | 5747 days | 1% |
| KatieR | 9/10 | 5867 days | 1% |
| Steve Harper | 6/10 | 5876 days | 0% |
| SHVellinga | 8/10 | 5888 days | 1% |
| EleanorL | 7/10 | 5902 days | 0% |
| PellucoFrance | 8/10 | 5902 days | 1% |
| MartinG | 9/10 | 5902 days | 1% |
| VickiS | 9/10 | 5902 days | 1% |
| KeziaB | 9/10 | 5902 days | 1% |
| Kay | 8/10 | 5918 days | 1% |
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 Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-3.19% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 73 days. However the Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday Park 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 Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 198 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 195 | -3.14% |
| 196 | -3.16% |
| 197 | -3.18% |
| 198 | -3.19% |
| 199 | -3.21% |
| 200 | -3.23% |
| 201 | -3.24% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
8.22% 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
76%
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.