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
71.80%
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 | 481 days | 83% |
| Cafe | 10/10 | 603 days | 100% |
| Charlotte Parsons | 4/10 | 877 days | 46% |
| Elizabeth | 7/10 | 908 days | 62% |
| Jaye Manso | 6/10 | 908 days | 57% |
| Marg Dale | 8/10 | 939 days | 61% |
| Ming | 3/10 | 969 days | 32% |
| Al | 3/10 | 1061 days | 26% |
| Vit Miller | 6/10 | 1089 days | 39% |
| Emily | 7/10 | 1181 days | 34% |
| Kirsty Speers | 9/10 | 1181 days | 36% |
| Emma | 9/10 | 1242 days | 30% |
| Hannah and Matthew | 7/10 | 1273 days | 26% |
| Linda | 9/10 | 2034 days | 6% |
| COUSTEIX Guy | 5/10 | 2034 days | 4% |
| Bert | 9/10 | 2247 days | 5% |
| William | 10/10 | 2277 days | 5% |
| Cheryle Harkins | 10/10 | 2308 days | 5% |
| Kate Shields | 4/10 | 2308 days | 3% |
| Lausgrott from Germany | 9/10 | 2338 days | 5% |
| Leonardo Cantalice | 8/10 | 2400 days | 5% |
| CC | 10/10 | 2491 days | 4% |
| Pedro | 3/10 | 2522 days | 2% |
| David Hart | 6/10 | 2522 days | 4% |
| Stefan Miedzinski | 4/10 | 2522 days | 3% |
| Anders Knutsson | 5/10 | 2581 days | 3% |
| Johannes Stahl | 2/10 | 2581 days | 2% |
| Elke fuenfstueck | 9/10 | 2612 days | 4% |
| Rainer Schimpf | 8/10 | 2612 days | 4% |
| Jonas R. | 9/10 | 2642 days | 4% |
| James & Kerry | 7/10 | 2642 days | 4% |
| Emma Higgins | 7/10 | 2673 days | 4% |
| Jim Barrell | 7/10 | 2703 days | 4% |
| Kimberly | 9/10 | 2703 days | 4% |
| Pauline Lewis | 8/10 | 2734 days | 4% |
| Stefano Clerici | 7/10 | 2765 days | 3% |
| Laidler family adventures | 10/10 | 2826 days | 4% |
| Bex & Jake | 8/10 | 2826 days | 4% |
| Wanda P | 10/10 | 2856 days | 4% |
| Ben H | 9/10 | 2887 days | 3% |
| Rikke Hessellund, Denmark | 9/10 | 2887 days | 3% |
| Robert Gatford | 7/10 | 2911 days | 3% |
| Helen Bond | 10/10 | 2946 days | 3% |
| Desiree | 10/10 | 2977 days | 3% |
| Ewan Evans | 7/10 | 2979 days | 3% |
| Eddie Howell | 9/10 | 2982 days | 3% |
| Sandra Wilson-Ryke | 8/10 | 3014 days | 3% |
| Nadene Wheatley | 7/10 | 3017 days | 3% |
| Javier Mimbrera | 9/10 | 3068 days | 3% |
| Geoff Steele | 8/10 | 3068 days | 3% |
| Stacey Maynard | 10/10 | 3086 days | 3% |
| Leonie Scholten | 10/10 | 3087 days | 3% |
| Matt Harrison | 8/10 | 3184 days | 3% |
| Jamie McDonald | 8/10 | 3213 days | 3% |
| Tania A | 9/10 | 3246 days | 3% |
| Anna Brzezińska Talaga | 8/10 | 3252 days | 3% |
| Eva Salacroup | 9/10 | 3255 days | 2% |
| Arslan Ahmad | 9/10 | 3262 days | 3% |
| Ernst Mayerhofer | 10/10 | 3368 days | 2% |
| Philipp Jahn | 9/10 | 3411 days | 2% |
| Becky and James | 9/10 | 3412 days | 2% |
| Jeffrey Ross | 10/10 | 3415 days | 2% |
| Frans Van Schie | 9/10 | 3420 days | 2% |
| Tony Waters | 9/10 | 3433 days | 2% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 3464 days | 2% |
| Mikael Torres | 8/10 | 3465 days | 2% |
| Beth Goodrich | 10/10 | 3476 days | 2% |
| Peter Barker | 8/10 | 3595 days | 2% |
| Sharon | 1/10 | 3598 days | 1% |
| Corina Sima | 9/10 | 3615 days | 2% |
| Staffan Johansson | 10/10 | 3628 days | 2% |
| Sven Hasselberger | 7/10 | 3658 days | 1% |
| Patrick Austin | 7/10 | 3677 days | 1% |
| Michael | 6/10 | 3742 days | 1% |
| Emily C | 9/10 | 3934 days | 1% |
| Mathieu Flechelle | 8/10 | 4042 days | 1% |
| Maren | 10/10 | 4076 days | 0% |
| Christopher Lambert-Züberlein | 7/10 | 4083 days | 0% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 4226 days | 0% |
| Pete | 9/10 | 4287 days | 0% |
| Henry Thiel | 8/10 | 4388 days | 1% |
| Philipp Haass | 5/10 | 4407 days | 1% |
| Fiona Bygrave | 6/10 | 4407 days | 1% |
| Héléna Degres | 9/10 | 4438 days | 1% |
| Bertiethebus | 8/10 | 4682 days | 1% |
| ramy | 9/10 | 4682 days | 1% |
| Phil & Laura | 8/10 | 4741 days | 1% |
| Philip Gibbons | 8/10 | 4772 days | 1% |
| Paul Lawrence | 8/10 | 4801 days | 1% |
| Cennart ud Brock | 8/10 | 4802 days | 1% |
| lindamoore | 9/10 | 4803 days | 1% |
| Andrew K | 9/10 | 4803 days | 1% |
| Jenben | 8/10 | 4833 days | 1% |
| Roshnie | 9/10 | 4833 days | 1% |
| Romla | 8/10 | 5085 days | 1% |
| Ronald Veldman | 8/10 | 5085 days | 1% |
| Dirk & Marlene | 8/10 | 5090 days | 1% |
| Andreas Kofod-Hansen | 9/10 | 5092 days | 1% |
| Christina | 7/10 | 5093 days | 1% |
| Ellen Jacobs | 9/10 | 5105 days | 1% |
| Tim Clark | 9/10 | 5106 days | 1% |
| polzeath | 6/10 | 5107 days | 1% |
| Hans Bos | 9/10 | 5170 days | 1% |
| Helen & Laurence | 8/10 | 5176 days | 1% |
| Willem & Lilian | 6/10 | 5178 days | 1% |
| bdel1963 | 9/10 | 5383 days | 1% |
| English_Campers | 9/10 | 5413 days | 1% |
| Jon_and_Family | 8/10 | 5413 days | 1% |
| Lindsey Clough | 4/10 | 5422 days | 0% |
| female40 | 5/10 | 5429 days | 1% |
| Michael Howat | 8/10 | 5434 days | 1% |
| Haan Begerian | 8/10 | 5458 days | 1% |
| Rob | 8/10 | 5459 days | 1% |
| Seifert | 10/10 | 5464 days | 1% |
| Hans De Bruin | 8/10 | 5472 days | 1% |
| Charli Skinner | 10/10 | 5739 days | 1% |
| Remro | 9/10 | 5797 days | 1% |
| Mark | 7/10 | 5817 days | 1% |
| Alzbeta Czech | 9/10 | 5823 days | 1% |
| Irene Turley | 6/10 | 5832 days | 1% |
| Ines Diana | 9/10 | 5836 days | 1% |
| Pizzanelli | 10/10 | 5836 days | 1% |
| Conor Coyle | 8/10 | 5854 days | 1% |
| deanlaw | 9/10 | 5882 days | 1% |
| usigmund | 8/10 | 5888 days | 1% |
| pthreadgood | 6/10 | 5897 days | 1% |
| Volker Jåkel | 5/10 | 5906 days | 1% |
| clairet | 7/10 | 6008 days | 1% |
| Jennifer Owen | 10/10 | 6021 days | 1% |
| KatieR | 9/10 | 6141 days | 1% |
| Steve Harper | 6/10 | 6150 days | 1% |
| SHVellinga | 8/10 | 6162 days | 1% |
| EleanorL | 7/10 | 6176 days | 1% |
| PellucoFrance | 8/10 | 6176 days | 1% |
| MartinG | 9/10 | 6176 days | 1% |
| VickiS | 9/10 | 6176 days | 1% |
| KeziaB | 9/10 | 6176 days | 1% |
| Kay | 8/10 | 6192 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
-4.12% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 48 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 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -4.06% |
| 198 | -4.08% |
| 199 | -4.10% |
| 200 | -4.12% |
| 201 | -4.14% |
| 202 | -4.16% |
| 203 | -4.18% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
8.39% 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.