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 Smiths Farm 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.
Smiths Farm Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
150 Valid Reviews
The Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has a total of 151 reviews. There are 150 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 150 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 110 |
|
73% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
17% |
| 8/10 | 12 |
|
8% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
96.13% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Smiths Farm Holiday Park valid reviews is 96.13% and is based on 150 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
29 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 150 valid reviews, the experience has 29 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 29 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 13 |
|
45% |
| 9/10 | 11 |
|
38% |
| 8/10 | 5 |
|
17% |
| 7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
92.76% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Smiths Farm Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 92.76% and is based on 29 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
98.63%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aragorn | 10/10 | 136 days | 100% |
| Thomas | 10/10 | 227 days | 98% |
| Pierre and Martine | 10/10 | 227 days | 98% |
| Mike Howe | 10/10 | 227 days | 98% |
| Sebastian | 10/10 | 258 days | 97% |
| Thomas & Annette | 10/10 | 289 days | 96% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 350 days | 94% |
| Zoe M | 10/10 | 350 days | 94% |
| Thomas Engelhardt | 10/10 | 379 days | 93% |
| RM | 10/10 | 441 days | 90% |
| Corinne | 8/10 | 502 days | 85% |
| ellie | 10/10 | 502 days | 87% |
| Brendan | 10/10 | 533 days | 85% |
| Steve | 10/10 | 564 days | 83% |
| Milly | 10/10 | 592 days | 81% |
| Sarah Woolley | 10/10 | 592 days | 81% |
| Imme | 10/10 | 623 days | 79% |
| Christian Wood | 10/10 | 623 days | 79% |
| Kevin McCall | 10/10 | 654 days | 76% |
| Ralph | 10/10 | 1019 days | 42% |
| Bex & Carl | 10/10 | 1019 days | 42% |
| Gem | 10/10 | 1049 days | 40% |
| Andrew | 10/10 | 1232 days | 25% |
| Kristine V | 10/10 | 1263 days | 23% |
| Barbora | 10/10 | 1322 days | 20% |
| Cloe | 10/10 | 1505 days | 11% |
| Kay | 8/10 | 1566 days | 9% |
| Isabella S | 10/10 | 1597 days | 8% |
| Elin Pranter | 10/10 | 1628 days | 7% |
| Zuzana and family | 10/10 | 1659 days | 6% |
| Just a guy | 10/10 | 1659 days | 6% |
| Liz Wade | 8/10 | 1687 days | 6% |
| Tom S | 10/10 | 1719 days | 6% |
| Erica | 8/10 | 1719 days | 5% |
| Dieter Giesen | 10/10 | 1719 days | 6% |
| Robert | 10/10 | 1750 days | 5% |
| Chris | 10/10 | 1750 days | 5% |
| Callum Mann | 10/10 | 1811 days | 5% |
| Martin Hansen | 10/10 | 1811 days | 5% |
| angelika19 | 10/10 | 1811 days | 5% |
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 1871 days | 5% |
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 1902 days | 5% |
| Nia | 9/10 | 1994 days | 5% |
| Maeike | 9/10 | 2025 days | 4% |
| Maika Laura | 10/10 | 2025 days | 4% |
| Axel & Sabine | 10/10 | 2025 days | 4% |
| Michael | 10/10 | 2053 days | 4% |
| Simone Maccagnan | 10/10 | 2084 days | 4% |
| Beate | 9/10 | 2084 days | 4% |
| Jonas and Lottie | 10/10 | 2115 days | 4% |
| Anita | 9/10 | 2115 days | 4% |
| Lance | 10/10 | 2145 days | 4% |
| Julia Thompson | 10/10 | 2145 days | 4% |
| Brett See | 10/10 | 2176 days | 4% |
| Grizzly Girl | 9/10 | 2176 days | 4% |
| kael Matthews | 9/10 | 2176 days | 4% |
| Kimberly | 10/10 | 2205 days | 4% |
| Jenna webber | 9/10 | 2205 days | 4% |
| Karina | 10/10 | 2390 days | 4% |
| Alde | 10/10 | 2390 days | 4% |
| The Weathersons | 9/10 | 2403 days | 3% |
| Tina Elsdon | 10/10 | 2448 days | 4% |
| Joanna du Toit | 9/10 | 2479 days | 4% |
| Nel Warnaar | 10/10 | 2485 days | 4% |
| Nigel Chapman | 10/10 | 2509 days | 4% |
| Craig Cini | 10/10 | 2573 days | 3% |
| Daniel Unkel | 10/10 | 2622 days | 3% |
| Eric Adelman | 10/10 | 2669 days | 3% |
| Jo Clarke | 8/10 | 2710 days | 3% |
| Jason Morehouse | 10/10 | 2754 days | 3% |
| Alan Brown | 5/10 | 2783 days | 2% |
| Matthias Wohlgemuth | 7/10 | 2797 days | 3% |
| Leilani Lemusu-Read | 10/10 | 2813 days | 3% |
| Kathrin Weigl | 10/10 | 2831 days | 3% |
| Yachar Tajamady | 10/10 | 2872 days | 3% |
| Tina Brill | 10/10 | 2905 days | 3% |
| Robert Ciarrocchi | 10/10 | 2972 days | 3% |
| Courtney | 10/10 | 2997 days | 3% |
| Cullen Wiginton | 10/10 | 3039 days | 2% |
| Alan Honey | 9/10 | 3069 days | 2% |
| Shaun Burns | 10/10 | 3077 days | 2% |
| Etienne Boeziek | 10/10 | 3081 days | 2% |
| Julia Clark | 9/10 | 3106 days | 2% |
| Sandra Kruse | 10/10 | 3108 days | 2% |
| Victoria Lee | 10/10 | 3188 days | 2% |
| Max Brunner | 10/10 | 3203 days | 2% |
| Hanna from Germany | 10/10 | 3215 days | 2% |
| Sarah Gurney | 10/10 | 3240 days | 2% |
| Ron Web | 10/10 | 3240 days | 2% |
| Claudius How | 10/10 | 3241 days | 2% |
| Jayne Lewis | 10/10 | 3241 days | 2% |
| Jade Duncan | 10/10 | 3259 days | 2% |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 3270 days | 2% |
| Megan | 10/10 | 3301 days | 2% |
| Nicolas Justin | 10/10 | 3476 days | 1% |
| Julia | 10/10 | 3485 days | 2% |
| John Wray | 10/10 | 3513 days | 2% |
| Constantin D | 10/10 | 3526 days | 2% |
| Jonathan Arndt | 10/10 | 3527 days | 2% |
| Virpi Andersson | 10/10 | 3544 days | 1% |
| Dieter Schmees | 9/10 | 3557 days | 1% |
| Manuela | 10/10 | 3572 days | 1% |
| Dieter & Lydia Schmees | 9/10 | 3575 days | 1% |
| Bert Snel | 10/10 | 3575 days | 1% |
| oren schnabel | 10/10 | 3575 days | 1% |
| SUE COLEMAN | 9/10 | 3575 days | 1% |
| Astrid Egesten | 9/10 | 3583 days | 1% |
| Gianpiero Rodari | 9/10 | 3605 days | 1% |
| sahni | 9/10 | 3789 days | 1% |
| Jan Legein | 10/10 | 3828 days | 1% |
| Josefin Lind | 9/10 | 3830 days | 1% |
| Herman Holmgist | 9/10 | 3830 days | 1% |
| Leeann Newton | 9/10 | 3877 days | 1% |
| Andrew Young | 10/10 | 3879 days | 1% |
| GN100 | 9/10 | 3879 days | 1% |
| Michael Turek | 10/10 | 3910 days | 1% |
| Linda Morey | 10/10 | 3910 days | 1% |
| Eric and Nienke | 8/10 | 3941 days | 1% |
| Julian Kemp | 10/10 | 3971 days | 1% |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 4002 days | 1% |
| PaulMacca | 10/10 | 4093 days | 0% |
| AoP | 10/10 | 4216 days | 0% |
| Penny Compton | 10/10 | 4216 days | 0% |
| Julian Roots | 8/10 | 4216 days | 0% |
| Helen and Ogi | 10/10 | 4229 days | 0% |
| Lis Bon | 10/10 | 4244 days | 0% |
| Pahlfamily | 10/10 | 4275 days | 0% |
| Joroen Borkert | 9/10 | 4293 days | 0% |
| Johannes OBerlin | 10/10 | 4578 days | 1% |
| Shavill | 10/10 | 4581 days | 1% |
| Michael Stoll | 10/10 | 4591 days | 1% |
| E Smudde | 8/10 | 4594 days | 1% |
| RhysWendy | 10/10 | 4641 days | 1% |
| Ken Jones | 9/10 | 4922 days | 1% |
| Steve Waterhouse | 8/10 | 4932 days | 1% |
| Jan Visser | 8/10 | 4947 days | 1% |
| Victoria Purver | 10/10 | 4950 days | 1% |
| Andrew Koster | 9/10 | 4960 days | 1% |
| Emma Edis-Bates | 9/10 | 4963 days | 1% |
| rhubarbsky | 10/10 | 5037 days | 1% |
| krisevelyn | 9/10 | 5250 days | 1% |
| Caitriona Doyle | 10/10 | 5334 days | 1% |
| Hanz | 10/10 | 5336 days | 1% |
| Linley Faulkner | 10/10 | 5340 days | 1% |
| EA Anders | 10/10 | 5357 days | 1% |
| Family van Hessem | 8/10 | 5360 days | 1% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 5410 days | 1% |
| Jessica Clarisse | 10/10 | 5414 days | 1% |
| Christine Suess | 10/10 | 5414 days | 1% |
| LindaV | 8/10 | 5680 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 Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-1.91% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 79 days. However the Smiths Farm 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 Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 131 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 128 | -1.87% |
| 129 | -1.88% |
| 130 | -1.90% |
| 131 | -1.91% |
| 132 | -1.92% |
| 133 | -1.94% |
| 134 | -1.95% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.27% 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
97%
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.