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 Picton 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.
Picton Tasman Holiday Parks
Valid Reviews
139 Valid Reviews
The Picton Tasman Holiday Parks experience has a total of 140 reviews. There are 139 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 139 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 33 |
|
24% |
| 9/10 | 41 |
|
29% |
| 8/10 | 44 |
|
32% |
| 7/10 | 14 |
|
10% |
| 6/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
84.82% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Picton Tasman Holiday Parks valid reviews is 84.82% and is based on 139 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
101 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 139 valid reviews, the experience has 101 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 101 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 23 |
|
23% |
| 9/10 | 30 |
|
30% |
| 8/10 | 33 |
|
33% |
| 7/10 | 12 |
|
12% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
85.05% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Picton Tasman Holiday Parks face-to-face reviews is 85.05% and is based on 101 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
90.03%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rich | 9/10 | 17 days | 99% |
| Jason C | 10/10 | 79 days | 100% |
| Donna | 10/10 | 79 days | 100% |
| Aoife | 8/10 | 261 days | 95% |
| Laura | 9/10 | 841 days | 59% |
| Ferg | 10/10 | 841 days | 60% |
| Inge | 8/10 | 900 days | 53% |
| Cindi Wight | 9/10 | 961 days | 47% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 992 days | 44% |
| Alexis | 10/10 | 1843 days | 5% |
| Cody | 10/10 | 1936 days | 5% |
| Mike Smith | 7/10 | 1996 days | 4% |
| Beth Carlton | 1/10 | 2057 days | 2% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 2330 days | 4% |
| Emma | 9/10 | 2361 days | 4% |
| Demi Thompson | 6/10 | 2422 days | 3% |
| Brett See | 9/10 | 2453 days | 4% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2453 days | 4% |
| Urs Bruderer | 10/10 | 3141 days | 2% |
| Leslie Lindeman | 10/10 | 3352 days | 2% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3355 days | 2% |
| Phillippa McLernon | 8/10 | 3414 days | 2% |
| Tine Fook | 6/10 | 3450 days | 1% |
| Jan Towers | 8/10 | 4095 days | 0% |
| Brita Topp | 8/10 | 4097 days | 0% |
| Mike Fricker | 8/10 | 4097 days | 0% |
| Mark Towers | 8/10 | 4128 days | 0% |
| Rikke Petersen | 9/10 | 4146 days | 0% |
| Ted Cole | 8/10 | 4156 days | 0% |
| Nigel | 8/10 | 4163 days | 0% |
| catherine welsh | 8/10 | 4187 days | 0% |
| Nigel & Annie Dale | 8/10 | 4248 days | 0% |
| ozelmer | 6/10 | 4308 days | 0% |
| AusCampa | 9/10 | 4431 days | 1% |
| Mark Wiggington | 7/10 | 4456 days | 1% |
| Ken Milligan | 8/10 | 4480 days | 1% |
| Gale Willcocks | 10/10 | 4486 days | 1% |
| Ken Richardson | 8/10 | 4486 days | 1% |
| Heather Macdonald | 9/10 | 4521 days | 1% |
| Nadine | 9/10 | 4565 days | 1% |
| Robert Staeller | 8/10 | 4568 days | 1% |
| David and Sally Wallis | 9/10 | 4574 days | 1% |
| Jackie and Brian | 8/10 | 4575 days | 1% |
| Peter | 10/10 | 4576 days | 1% |
| Julia Ramseier | 10/10 | 4595 days | 1% |
| Lisa Blake | 8/10 | 4599 days | 1% |
| Ton Franke | 8/10 | 4599 days | 1% |
| Megan Child | 9/10 | 4600 days | 1% |
| Jonathan Tuthill | 10/10 | 4843 days | 1% |
| Carly Braddock | 10/10 | 4847 days | 1% |
| Def Fem | 8/10 | 4853 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 4858 days | 1% |
| Michael Jefferies | 9/10 | 4861 days | 1% |
| Mark Bogton | 9/10 | 4867 days | 1% |
| Dominik Langenegger | 10/10 | 4869 days | 1% |
| Moehl | 9/10 | 4870 days | 1% |
| D Collier | 10/10 | 4871 days | 1% |
| Uwe Henze | 8/10 | 4872 days | 1% |
| Ute Rogawski | 7/10 | 4879 days | 1% |
| Nikita Sue | 7/10 | 4880 days | 1% |
| Heewin Otten | 10/10 | 4880 days | 1% |
| D R Valentine | 10/10 | 4881 days | 1% |
| Andreas Kristiansen | 9/10 | 4881 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 4882 days | 1% |
| John Reynolds | 10/10 | 4882 days | 1% |
| Katie K | 10/10 | 4896 days | 1% |
| ZephyrTL | 8/10 | 4918 days | 1% |
| Peter, Noelle & Susanne | 10/10 | 4952 days | 1% |
| John & Myra Sloan | 9/10 | 4958 days | 1% |
| Jan & Marian | 10/10 | 4961 days | 1% |
| Andy Lever | 9/10 | 4964 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 8/10 | 4966 days | 1% |
| damaca | 9/10 | 5039 days | 1% |
| Tacksharp | 9/10 | 5101 days | 1% |
| Edward Marhi | 9/10 | 5189 days | 1% |
| Weez18 | 10/10 | 5193 days | 1% |
| de Smedt | 9/10 | 5196 days | 1% |
| Eric Grant | 8/10 | 5198 days | 1% |
| Koen Vanlede | 8/10 | 5210 days | 1% |
| Sue Top | 10/10 | 5211 days | 1% |
| Marty Fey | 5/10 | 5215 days | 1% |
| Gord Carnochan | 9/10 | 5225 days | 1% |
| Pam & Rob Tellwright | 8/10 | 5228 days | 1% |
| Derek Puplett | 9/10 | 5228 days | 1% |
| Callum Sibbald | 8/10 | 5228 days | 1% |
| Gerlach | 8/10 | 5229 days | 1% |
| Agnes McMillan | 10/10 | 5236 days | 1% |
| Jill Dean | 8/10 | 5239 days | 1% |
| Philipp Rau | 8/10 | 5243 days | 1% |
| Eva Stauderova | 10/10 | 5243 days | 1% |
| Annette Mogg | 10/10 | 5248 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 5375 days | 1% |
| Betty le Brech | 8/10 | 5571 days | 1% |
| Ed & Pat Mitchell | 9/10 | 5597 days | 1% |
| Sue Bennett | 7/10 | 5599 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5599 days | 1% |
| Liz Pursey | 9/10 | 5609 days | 1% |
| pvo plas | 8/10 | 5611 days | 1% |
| Hoogh | 9/10 | 5614 days | 1% |
| Carina Raeder | 8/10 | 5615 days | 1% |
| John Rylance | 10/10 | 5616 days | 1% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 5616 days | 1% |
| Tonny | 9/10 | 5616 days | 1% |
| Tim | 7/10 | 5617 days | 1% |
| Allan Bond | 7/10 | 5623 days | 1% |
| uleugel | 9/10 | 5626 days | 1% |
| Jeannot Robert | 10/10 | 5627 days | 1% |
| Norbert Hainz | 8/10 | 5630 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5637 days | 1% |
| T S | 10/10 | 5648 days | 1% |
| eliertv | 9/10 | 5663 days | 1% |
| adamek | 7/10 | 5663 days | 1% |
| frederike | 8/10 | 5664 days | 1% |
| Karin Linder | 9/10 | 5683 days | 1% |
| Bue Verrept | 8/10 | 5686 days | 1% |
| Pia | 2/10 | 5690 days | 0% |
| Gebert | 8/10 | 5690 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 8/10 | 5691 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 9/10 | 5692 days | 1% |
| Kelly | 10/10 | 5833 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 5903 days | 1% |
| AndySwitzerland | 8/10 | 5906 days | 1% |
| suet | 7/10 | 5923 days | 1% |
| scottl | 7/10 | 5923 days | 1% |
| neeltjec | 9/10 | 5923 days | 1% |
| Martien van Brakel | 9/10 | 5923 days | 1% |
| BevanLisa | 8/10 | 5940 days | 1% |
| JeremyE | 8/10 | 5941 days | 1% |
| TessaW | 4/10 | 5941 days | 1% |
| LucyT | 10/10 | 5941 days | 1% |
| Florens | 8/10 | 5943 days | 1% |
| Joel | 7/10 | 5943 days | 1% |
| Tiemen | 7/10 | 5943 days | 1% |
| NikkiB1 | 9/10 | 5958 days | 1% |
| BrunoS | 9/10 | 5958 days | 1% |
| JoseB | 9/10 | 5965 days | 1% |
| Debbie | 9/10 | 5965 days | 1% |
| InkenGermany | 9/10 | 5965 days | 1% |
| John | 7/10 | 5972 days | 1% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Picton Tasman Holiday Parks does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
1.00% 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
91%
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.