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.
154 Valid Reviews
The Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has a total of 155 reviews. There are 154 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 154 valid reviews:
Rating | Count | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
10/10 | 113 |
|
73% |
9/10 | 26 |
|
17% |
8/10 | 13 |
|
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% |
96.10% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Smiths Farm Holiday Park valid reviews is 96.10% and is based on 154 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
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 154 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.
98.03%
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 |
---|---|---|---|
EI | 10/10 | 107 days | 100% |
Andi | 10/10 | 107 days | 100% |
Hannah | 8/10 | 107 days | 98% |
Joe | 10/10 | 138 days | 100% |
Aragorn | 10/10 | 291 days | 96% |
Thomas | 10/10 | 381 days | 92% |
Pierre and Martine | 10/10 | 381 days | 92% |
Mike Howe | 10/10 | 381 days | 92% |
Sebastian | 10/10 | 412 days | 91% |
Thomas & Annette | 10/10 | 443 days | 89% |
Anna | 10/10 | 504 days | 86% |
Zoe M | 10/10 | 504 days | 86% |
Thomas Engelhardt | 10/10 | 534 days | 84% |
RM | 10/10 | 596 days | 80% |
Corinne | 8/10 | 657 days | 74% |
ellie | 10/10 | 657 days | 76% |
Brendan | 10/10 | 687 days | 74% |
Steve | 10/10 | 718 days | 71% |
Milly | 10/10 | 746 days | 69% |
Sarah Woolley | 10/10 | 746 days | 69% |
Imme | 10/10 | 777 days | 66% |
Christian Wood | 10/10 | 777 days | 66% |
Kevin McCall | 10/10 | 808 days | 63% |
Ralph | 10/10 | 1173 days | 29% |
Bex & Carl | 10/10 | 1173 days | 29% |
Gem | 10/10 | 1203 days | 27% |
Andrew | 10/10 | 1387 days | 16% |
Kristine V | 10/10 | 1417 days | 15% |
Barbora | 10/10 | 1476 days | 12% |
Cloe | 10/10 | 1660 days | 7% |
Kay | 8/10 | 1721 days | 6% |
Isabella S | 10/10 | 1752 days | 5% |
Elin Pranter | 10/10 | 1782 days | 5% |
Zuzana and family | 10/10 | 1813 days | 5% |
Just a guy | 10/10 | 1813 days | 5% |
Liz Wade | 8/10 | 1841 days | 5% |
Tom S | 10/10 | 1873 days | 5% |
Erica | 8/10 | 1873 days | 5% |
Dieter Giesen | 10/10 | 1873 days | 5% |
Robert | 10/10 | 1904 days | 5% |
Chris | 10/10 | 1904 days | 5% |
Callum Mann | 10/10 | 1965 days | 5% |
Martin Hansen | 10/10 | 1965 days | 5% |
angelika19 | 10/10 | 1965 days | 5% |
Anonymous | 10/10 | 2026 days | 5% |
Anonymous | 10/10 | 2057 days | 5% |
Nia | 9/10 | 2148 days | 4% |
Maeike | 9/10 | 2179 days | 4% |
Maika Laura | 10/10 | 2179 days | 4% |
Axel & Sabine | 10/10 | 2179 days | 4% |
Michael | 10/10 | 2207 days | 4% |
Simone Maccagnan | 10/10 | 2238 days | 4% |
Beate | 9/10 | 2238 days | 4% |
Jonas and Lottie | 10/10 | 2269 days | 4% |
Anita | 9/10 | 2269 days | 4% |
Lance | 10/10 | 2299 days | 4% |
Julia Thompson | 10/10 | 2299 days | 4% |
Brett See | 10/10 | 2330 days | 4% |
Grizzly Girl | 9/10 | 2330 days | 4% |
kael Matthews | 9/10 | 2330 days | 4% |
Kimberly | 10/10 | 2360 days | 4% |
Jenna webber | 9/10 | 2360 days | 4% |
Karina | 10/10 | 2544 days | 4% |
Alde | 10/10 | 2544 days | 4% |
The Weathersons | 9/10 | 2557 days | 2% |
Tina Elsdon | 10/10 | 2602 days | 3% |
Joanna du Toit | 9/10 | 2633 days | 3% |
Nel Warnaar | 10/10 | 2639 days | 3% |
Nigel Chapman | 10/10 | 2663 days | 3% |
Craig Cini | 10/10 | 2728 days | 3% |
Daniel Unkel | 10/10 | 2777 days | 3% |
Eric Adelman | 10/10 | 2824 days | 3% |
Jo Clarke | 8/10 | 2865 days | 3% |
Jason Morehouse | 10/10 | 2908 days | 3% |
Alan Brown | 5/10 | 2937 days | 2% |
Matthias Wohlgemuth | 7/10 | 2951 days | 3% |
Leilani Lemusu-Read | 10/10 | 2967 days | 3% |
Kathrin Weigl | 10/10 | 2985 days | 3% |
Yachar Tajamady | 10/10 | 3026 days | 3% |
Tina Brill | 10/10 | 3059 days | 3% |
Robert Ciarrocchi | 10/10 | 3127 days | 2% |
Courtney | 10/10 | 3152 days | 2% |
Cullen Wiginton | 10/10 | 3194 days | 2% |
Alan Honey | 9/10 | 3224 days | 2% |
Shaun Burns | 10/10 | 3232 days | 2% |
Etienne Boeziek | 10/10 | 3236 days | 2% |
Julia Clark | 9/10 | 3260 days | 2% |
Sandra Kruse | 10/10 | 3262 days | 2% |
Victoria Lee | 10/10 | 3342 days | 2% |
Max Brunner | 10/10 | 3357 days | 2% |
Hanna from Germany | 10/10 | 3369 days | 2% |
Sarah Gurney | 10/10 | 3394 days | 2% |
Ron Web | 10/10 | 3394 days | 2% |
Claudius How | 10/10 | 3395 days | 2% |
Jayne Lewis | 10/10 | 3395 days | 2% |
Jade Duncan | 10/10 | 3413 days | 2% |
Steve Warren | 10/10 | 3424 days | 2% |
Megan | 10/10 | 3455 days | 2% |
Nicolas Justin | 10/10 | 3630 days | 1% |
Julia | 10/10 | 3639 days | 1% |
John Wray | 10/10 | 3667 days | 1% |
Constantin D | 10/10 | 3680 days | 1% |
Jonathan Arndt | 10/10 | 3681 days | 1% |
Virpi Andersson | 10/10 | 3698 days | 1% |
Dieter Schmees | 9/10 | 3711 days | 1% |
Manuela | 10/10 | 3726 days | 1% |
Dieter & Lydia Schmees | 9/10 | 3729 days | 1% |
Bert Snel | 10/10 | 3729 days | 1% |
oren schnabel | 10/10 | 3729 days | 1% |
SUE COLEMAN | 9/10 | 3729 days | 1% |
Astrid Egesten | 9/10 | 3737 days | 1% |
Gianpiero Rodari | 9/10 | 3759 days | 1% |
sahni | 9/10 | 3944 days | 1% |
Jan Legein | 10/10 | 3982 days | 1% |
Josefin Lind | 9/10 | 3984 days | 1% |
Herman Holmgist | 9/10 | 3984 days | 1% |
Leeann Newton | 9/10 | 4031 days | 0% |
Andrew Young | 10/10 | 4033 days | 1% |
GN100 | 9/10 | 4033 days | 1% |
Michael Turek | 10/10 | 4064 days | 1% |
Linda Morey | 10/10 | 4064 days | 1% |
Eric and Nienke | 8/10 | 4095 days | 1% |
Julian Kemp | 10/10 | 4125 days | 0% |
Steve Warren | 10/10 | 4156 days | 0% |
PaulMacca | 10/10 | 4248 days | 0% |
AoP | 10/10 | 4370 days | 0% |
Penny Compton | 10/10 | 4370 days | 0% |
Julian Roots | 8/10 | 4370 days | 0% |
Helen and Ogi | 10/10 | 4383 days | 1% |
Lis Bon | 10/10 | 4398 days | 1% |
Pahlfamily | 10/10 | 4429 days | 1% |
Joroen Borkert | 9/10 | 4447 days | 1% |
Johannes OBerlin | 10/10 | 4732 days | 1% |
Shavill | 10/10 | 4735 days | 1% |
Michael Stoll | 10/10 | 4745 days | 1% |
E Smudde | 8/10 | 4748 days | 1% |
RhysWendy | 10/10 | 4795 days | 1% |
Ken Jones | 9/10 | 5076 days | 1% |
Steve Waterhouse | 8/10 | 5086 days | 1% |
Jan Visser | 8/10 | 5101 days | 1% |
Victoria Purver | 10/10 | 5104 days | 1% |
Andrew Koster | 9/10 | 5114 days | 1% |
Emma Edis-Bates | 9/10 | 5117 days | 1% |
rhubarbsky | 10/10 | 5191 days | 1% |
krisevelyn | 9/10 | 5405 days | 1% |
Caitriona Doyle | 10/10 | 5488 days | 1% |
Hanz | 10/10 | 5490 days | 1% |
Linley Faulkner | 10/10 | 5494 days | 1% |
EA Anders | 10/10 | 5511 days | 1% |
Family van Hessem | 8/10 | 5514 days | 1% |
Anna | 10/10 | 5564 days | 1% |
Jessica Clarisse | 10/10 | 5568 days | 1% |
Christine Suess | 10/10 | 5568 days | 1% |
LindaV | 8/10 | 5834 days | 1% |
Several adjustments to the weighted average are added to improve relevancy and credibility. These adjustments apply equally to all experiences that meet the criteria.
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.
-1.58% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 52 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 76 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
Days | Adjustment |
---|---|
… | … |
73 | -1.52% |
74 | -1.54% |
75 | -1.56% |
76 | -1.58% |
77 | -1.60% |
78 | -1.62% |
79 | -1.64% |
… | … |
0.30% 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.
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.