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 Kennedy Park Resort Napier.
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.
Kennedy Park Resort Napier
Valid Reviews
88 Valid Reviews
The Kennedy Park Resort Napier experience has a total of 93 reviews. There are 88 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 88 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 16 |
|
18% |
| 9/10 | 29 |
|
33% |
| 8/10 | 16 |
|
18% |
| 7/10 | 8 |
|
9% |
| 6/10 | 8 |
|
9% |
| 5/10 | 3 |
|
3% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
3% |
77.95% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Kennedy Park Resort Napier valid reviews is 77.95% and is based on 88 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 88 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 | 7 |
|
15% |
| 9/10 | 16 |
|
35% |
| 8/10 | 14 |
|
30% |
| 7/10 | 4 |
|
9% |
| 6/10 | 2 |
|
4% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
4% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
82.39% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Kennedy Park Resort Napier face-to-face reviews is 82.39% 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
76.77%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Andrew Lester | 6/10 | 37 days | 87% |
| Clement | 9/10 | 37 days | 100% |
| Joann Petry | 9/10 | 68 days | 100% |
| Joy | 1/10 | 464 days | 36% |
| Shaun | 9/10 | 708 days | 71% |
| Prof. Dr. Henrik Schroeder-Boersch | 9/10 | 830 days | 61% |
| Chrissy | 5/10 | 830 days | 47% |
| Jaye Manso | 10/10 | 952 days | 49% |
| Paige Hayward | 6/10 | 1195 days | 24% |
| River | 5/10 | 1225 days | 20% |
| Linc | 7/10 | 1286 days | 20% |
| Stacey | 9/10 | 1529 days | 10% |
| Ella | 7/10 | 1804 days | 5% |
| ShaneandJosiegoat | 3/10 | 2352 days | 2% |
| Raph | 9/10 | 2474 days | 4% |
| Niven | 10/10 | 2594 days | 3% |
| Cris | 10/10 | 2686 days | 3% |
| Ryan | 9/10 | 2809 days | 3% |
| João Muchon | 1/10 | 2809 days | 1% |
| Sandra Wilson-Ryke | 8/10 | 3055 days | 2% |
| Fifi and Jay | 6/10 | 3209 days | 2% |
| Wayne Britton | 9/10 | 3288 days | 2% |
| Sheona Smith | 9/10 | 3337 days | 2% |
| Mick Williams | 9/10 | 3370 days | 2% |
| Irene Buckle | 10/10 | 3420 days | 2% |
| Mike Guest | 10/10 | 3453 days | 2% |
| Paul O'Neill | 9/10 | 3636 days | 1% |
| Paul Abernethy | 10/10 | 3681 days | 1% |
| Patrick Austin | 9/10 | 3721 days | 1% |
| Jerry Trentham | 2/10 | 4208 days | 0% |
| Daniel Capener | 6/10 | 4270 days | 0% |
| monique colello | 1/10 | 4392 days | 0% |
| Chevy Levy | 6/10 | 4392 days | 1% |
| John Daniels | 2/10 | 4635 days | 0% |
| Eddie | 8/10 | 4726 days | 1% |
| Hendrik Rother | 6/10 | 4748 days | 1% |
| Michael Nolan | 9/10 | 4757 days | 1% |
| Julian Roots | 7/10 | 4757 days | 1% |
| Kyle Guffei | 7/10 | 4780 days | 1% |
| Steve Douthwaite | 10/10 | 4836 days | 1% |
| Joan and Colin Price | 7/10 | 4848 days | 1% |
| Jim and JoAnn Harllee | 9/10 | 4853 days | 1% |
| Julia Ramseier | 10/10 | 4859 days | 1% |
| Moss | 8/10 | 5107 days | 1% |
| Ian Douglas | 9/10 | 5109 days | 1% |
| D van Dongen | 8/10 | 5126 days | 1% |
| Christian & Julia | 9/10 | 5132 days | 1% |
| Moehl | 9/10 | 5134 days | 1% |
| Patricia Fearon | 8/10 | 5134 days | 1% |
| Walter & Heidi Baumann | 8/10 | 5136 days | 1% |
| Dave Simpson | 9/10 | 5136 days | 1% |
| Mags Adams | 8/10 | 5137 days | 1% |
| Hayo Heerink | 9/10 | 5137 days | 1% |
| de Weijer | 8/10 | 5139 days | 1% |
| Frank Waskikowski | 10/10 | 5145 days | 1% |
| Kim Thorsted | 8/10 | 5145 days | 1% |
| Janet | 9/10 | 5151 days | 1% |
| polzeath | 7/10 | 5151 days | 1% |
| Stig Domander | 6/10 | 5164 days | 1% |
| Bernhard & Brigitte Gosch | 8/10 | 5220 days | 1% |
| Sunshine25 | 10/10 | 5243 days | 1% |
| damaca | 6/10 | 5274 days | 1% |
| Nicola Shaw | 10/10 | 5481 days | 1% |
| Rachel Kent-Lawton | 9/10 | 5488 days | 1% |
| Colin Lockwood | 8/10 | 5491 days | 1% |
| Rachel Gerrand | 4/10 | 5493 days | 1% |
| Walter Peters | 9/10 | 5500 days | 1% |
| Anita Aleva | 8/10 | 5500 days | 1% |
| Mark Robinson | 7/10 | 5508 days | 1% |
| Rossiter | 10/10 | 5509 days | 1% |
| Patrick Decoster | 9/10 | 5509 days | 1% |
| Jorgen vahl Rasmussen | 10/10 | 5509 days | 1% |
| Mike Robinson | 9/10 | 5846 days | 1% |
| Gerdes | 9/10 | 5850 days | 1% |
| Phil Bruce | 8/10 | 5859 days | 1% |
| Malcolm Glad | 4/10 | 5866 days | 1% |
| Walter | 9/10 | 5867 days | 1% |
| Liz Pursey | 9/10 | 5873 days | 1% |
| Bryan Keddie | 8/10 | 5877 days | 1% |
| Camenzind | 8/10 | 5901 days | 1% |
| T S | 10/10 | 5912 days | 1% |
| Furger | 9/10 | 5945 days | 1% |
| Hansjoerg Ehrmann | 10/10 | 5954 days | 1% |
| Katerina Wimmer | 9/10 | 5954 days | 1% |
| wanganuilover | 10/10 | 6065 days | 1% |
| Sejna | 5/10 | 6129 days | 1% |
| monikav | 8/10 | 6187 days | 1% |
| Anita Nai | 7/10 | 6190 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 Kennedy Park Resort Napier experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.14% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 56 days. However the Kennedy Park Resort Napier 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 Kennedy Park Resort Napier experience has been adjusted for 7 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 4 | -0.08% |
| 5 | -0.10% |
| 6 | -0.12% |
| 7 | -0.14% |
| 8 | -0.16% |
| 9 | -0.18% |
| 10 | -0.20% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.05% 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
81%
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.