G'day, 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.
151 Valid Reviews
The Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has a total of 152 reviews. There are 151 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 151 valid reviews:
Rating | Count | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
10/10 | 111 |
|
74% |
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% |
96.16% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Smiths Farm Holiday Park valid reviews is 96.16% and is based on 151 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 151 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.
98.70%
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 |
---|---|---|---|
Joe | 10/10 | 39 days | 100% |
Aragorn | 10/10 | 192 days | 98% |
Thomas | 10/10 | 282 days | 96% |
Pierre and Martine | 10/10 | 282 days | 96% |
Mike Howe | 10/10 | 282 days | 96% |
Sebastian | 10/10 | 313 days | 94% |
Thomas & Annette | 10/10 | 344 days | 93% |
Anna | 10/10 | 405 days | 91% |
Zoe M | 10/10 | 405 days | 91% |
Thomas Engelhardt | 10/10 | 435 days | 89% |
RM | 10/10 | 497 days | 86% |
Corinne | 8/10 | 558 days | 81% |
ellie | 10/10 | 558 days | 82% |
Brendan | 10/10 | 588 days | 80% |
Steve | 10/10 | 619 days | 78% |
Milly | 10/10 | 647 days | 76% |
Sarah Woolley | 10/10 | 647 days | 76% |
Imme | 10/10 | 678 days | 74% |
Christian Wood | 10/10 | 678 days | 74% |
Kevin McCall | 10/10 | 709 days | 71% |
Ralph | 10/10 | 1074 days | 37% |
Bex & Carl | 10/10 | 1074 days | 37% |
Gem | 10/10 | 1104 days | 35% |
Andrew | 10/10 | 1288 days | 21% |
Kristine V | 10/10 | 1318 days | 20% |
Barbora | 10/10 | 1377 days | 16% |
Cloe | 10/10 | 1561 days | 9% |
Kay | 8/10 | 1622 days | 7% |
Isabella S | 10/10 | 1653 days | 7% |
Elin Pranter | 10/10 | 1683 days | 6% |
Zuzana and family | 10/10 | 1714 days | 6% |
Just a guy | 10/10 | 1714 days | 6% |
Liz Wade | 8/10 | 1742 days | 5% |
Tom S | 10/10 | 1774 days | 5% |
Erica | 8/10 | 1774 days | 5% |
Dieter Giesen | 10/10 | 1774 days | 5% |
Robert | 10/10 | 1805 days | 5% |
Chris | 10/10 | 1805 days | 5% |
Callum Mann | 10/10 | 1866 days | 5% |
Martin Hansen | 10/10 | 1866 days | 5% |
angelika19 | 10/10 | 1866 days | 5% |
Anonymous | 10/10 | 1927 days | 5% |
Anonymous | 10/10 | 1958 days | 5% |
Nia | 9/10 | 2049 days | 4% |
Maeike | 9/10 | 2080 days | 4% |
Maika Laura | 10/10 | 2080 days | 4% |
Axel & Sabine | 10/10 | 2080 days | 4% |
Michael | 10/10 | 2108 days | 4% |
Simone Maccagnan | 10/10 | 2139 days | 4% |
Beate | 9/10 | 2139 days | 4% |
Jonas and Lottie | 10/10 | 2170 days | 4% |
Anita | 9/10 | 2170 days | 4% |
Lance | 10/10 | 2200 days | 4% |
Julia Thompson | 10/10 | 2200 days | 4% |
Brett See | 10/10 | 2231 days | 4% |
Grizzly Girl | 9/10 | 2231 days | 4% |
kael Matthews | 9/10 | 2231 days | 4% |
Kimberly | 10/10 | 2261 days | 4% |
Jenna webber | 9/10 | 2261 days | 4% |
Karina | 10/10 | 2445 days | 4% |
Alde | 10/10 | 2445 days | 4% |
The Weathersons | 9/10 | 2458 days | 3% |
Tina Elsdon | 10/10 | 2503 days | 4% |
Joanna du Toit | 9/10 | 2534 days | 4% |
Nel Warnaar | 10/10 | 2540 days | 4% |
Nigel Chapman | 10/10 | 2564 days | 3% |
Craig Cini | 10/10 | 2629 days | 3% |
Daniel Unkel | 10/10 | 2678 days | 3% |
Eric Adelman | 10/10 | 2725 days | 3% |
Jo Clarke | 8/10 | 2766 days | 3% |
Jason Morehouse | 10/10 | 2809 days | 3% |
Alan Brown | 5/10 | 2838 days | 2% |
Matthias Wohlgemuth | 7/10 | 2852 days | 3% |
Leilani Lemusu-Read | 10/10 | 2868 days | 3% |
Kathrin Weigl | 10/10 | 2886 days | 3% |
Yachar Tajamady | 10/10 | 2927 days | 3% |
Tina Brill | 10/10 | 2960 days | 3% |
Robert Ciarrocchi | 10/10 | 3028 days | 3% |
Courtney | 10/10 | 3053 days | 3% |
Cullen Wiginton | 10/10 | 3095 days | 2% |
Alan Honey | 9/10 | 3125 days | 2% |
Shaun Burns | 10/10 | 3133 days | 2% |
Etienne Boeziek | 10/10 | 3137 days | 2% |
Julia Clark | 9/10 | 3161 days | 2% |
Sandra Kruse | 10/10 | 3163 days | 2% |
Victoria Lee | 10/10 | 3243 days | 2% |
Max Brunner | 10/10 | 3258 days | 2% |
Hanna from Germany | 10/10 | 3270 days | 2% |
Sarah Gurney | 10/10 | 3295 days | 2% |
Ron Web | 10/10 | 3295 days | 2% |
Claudius How | 10/10 | 3296 days | 2% |
Jayne Lewis | 10/10 | 3296 days | 2% |
Jade Duncan | 10/10 | 3314 days | 2% |
Steve Warren | 10/10 | 3325 days | 2% |
Megan | 10/10 | 3356 days | 2% |
Nicolas Justin | 10/10 | 3531 days | 1% |
Julia | 10/10 | 3540 days | 2% |
John Wray | 10/10 | 3568 days | 2% |
Constantin D | 10/10 | 3581 days | 2% |
Jonathan Arndt | 10/10 | 3582 days | 2% |
Virpi Andersson | 10/10 | 3599 days | 1% |
Dieter Schmees | 9/10 | 3612 days | 1% |
Manuela | 10/10 | 3627 days | 1% |
Dieter & Lydia Schmees | 9/10 | 3630 days | 1% |
Bert Snel | 10/10 | 3630 days | 1% |
oren schnabel | 10/10 | 3630 days | 1% |
SUE COLEMAN | 9/10 | 3630 days | 1% |
Astrid Egesten | 9/10 | 3638 days | 1% |
Gianpiero Rodari | 9/10 | 3660 days | 1% |
sahni | 9/10 | 3845 days | 1% |
Jan Legein | 10/10 | 3883 days | 1% |
Josefin Lind | 9/10 | 3885 days | 1% |
Herman Holmgist | 9/10 | 3885 days | 1% |
Leeann Newton | 9/10 | 3932 days | 1% |
Andrew Young | 10/10 | 3934 days | 1% |
GN100 | 9/10 | 3934 days | 1% |
Michael Turek | 10/10 | 3965 days | 1% |
Linda Morey | 10/10 | 3965 days | 1% |
Eric and Nienke | 8/10 | 3996 days | 1% |
Julian Kemp | 10/10 | 4026 days | 1% |
Steve Warren | 10/10 | 4057 days | 1% |
PaulMacca | 10/10 | 4149 days | 0% |
AoP | 10/10 | 4271 days | 0% |
Penny Compton | 10/10 | 4271 days | 0% |
Julian Roots | 8/10 | 4271 days | 0% |
Helen and Ogi | 10/10 | 4284 days | 0% |
Lis Bon | 10/10 | 4299 days | 0% |
Pahlfamily | 10/10 | 4330 days | 0% |
Joroen Borkert | 9/10 | 4348 days | 0% |
Johannes OBerlin | 10/10 | 4633 days | 1% |
Shavill | 10/10 | 4636 days | 1% |
Michael Stoll | 10/10 | 4646 days | 1% |
E Smudde | 8/10 | 4649 days | 1% |
RhysWendy | 10/10 | 4696 days | 1% |
Ken Jones | 9/10 | 4977 days | 1% |
Steve Waterhouse | 8/10 | 4987 days | 1% |
Jan Visser | 8/10 | 5002 days | 1% |
Victoria Purver | 10/10 | 5005 days | 1% |
Andrew Koster | 9/10 | 5015 days | 1% |
Emma Edis-Bates | 9/10 | 5018 days | 1% |
rhubarbsky | 10/10 | 5092 days | 1% |
krisevelyn | 9/10 | 5306 days | 1% |
Caitriona Doyle | 10/10 | 5389 days | 1% |
Hanz | 10/10 | 5391 days | 1% |
Linley Faulkner | 10/10 | 5395 days | 1% |
EA Anders | 10/10 | 5412 days | 1% |
Family van Hessem | 8/10 | 5415 days | 1% |
Anna | 10/10 | 5465 days | 1% |
Jessica Clarisse | 10/10 | 5469 days | 1% |
Christine Suess | 10/10 | 5469 days | 1% |
LindaV | 8/10 | 5735 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.
-0.28% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 46 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 14 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
Days | Adjustment |
---|---|
… | … |
11 | -0.22% |
12 | -0.24% |
13 | -0.26% |
14 | -0.28% |
15 | -0.30% |
16 | -0.32% |
17 | -0.34% |
… | … |
0.13% 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.
99%
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.