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 Riverside 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.
![](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg width="300" height="300" viewBox="0 0 300 300" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><rect id="bg" width="300" height="300" fill="rgb(46,196,145)" /><path d="m 150 605 Q 206 94 -305 150 Q 206 206 150 -305 Q 94 206 605 150 Q 94 94 150 605 z" fill="rgb(70,136,0)" /><path d="m 150 515 Q 296 4 -215 150 Q 296 296 150 -215 Q 4 296 515 150 Q 4 4 150 515 z" fill="rgb(185,119,255)" /><path d="m 150 176 Q 165 135 124 150 Q 165 165 150 124 Q 135 165 176 150 Q 135 135 150 176 z" fill="rgb(209,59,110)" /></svg>)
Riverside Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
129 Valid Reviews
The Riverside Holiday Park experience has a total of 134 reviews. There are 129 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 129 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 61 |
|
47% |
| 9/10 | 28 |
|
22% |
| 8/10 | 17 |
|
13% |
| 7/10 | 8 |
|
6% |
| 6/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
| 5/10 | 6 |
|
5% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
86.43% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Riverside Holiday Park valid reviews is 86.43% and is based on 129 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
20 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 129 valid reviews, the experience has 20 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 20 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 2 |
|
10% |
| 9/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 8/10 | 6 |
|
30% |
| 7/10 | 3 |
|
15% |
| 6/10 | 3 |
|
15% |
| 5/10 | 3 |
|
15% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
5% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 2 |
|
10% |
63.50% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Riverside Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 63.50% and is based on 20 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
94.83%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan | 10/10 | 55 days | 100% |
| Felix Koester | 10/10 | 117 days | 99% |
| EI | 9/10 | 147 days | 98% |
| Ellie | 9/10 | 178 days | 97% |
| Kay | 9/10 | 361 days | 92% |
| Georgie | 10/10 | 392 days | 91% |
| Doreen Kirk | 8/10 | 392 days | 90% |
| Emma B | 10/10 | 421 days | 90% |
| Dylan | 10/10 | 605 days | 79% |
| Tzan from CA | 10/10 | 636 days | 77% |
| Julie | 10/10 | 697 days | 72% |
| Tom | 10/10 | 786 days | 65% |
| Amy Shoemake | 10/10 | 848 days | 59% |
| Evan | 10/10 | 878 days | 56% |
| Roxanne | 10/10 | 1243 days | 24% |
| Cera | 10/10 | 1396 days | 15% |
| Wayne Ravelich | 8/10 | 1488 days | 11% |
| Clive | 10/10 | 1547 days | 9% |
| Tourist in my own country | 1/10 | 1547 days | 4% |
| Jade Bray | 9/10 | 1547 days | 9% |
| Harry | 10/10 | 1547 days | 9% |
| Dan | 9/10 | 1608 days | 8% |
| Teesh K | 9/10 | 1608 days | 8% |
| Daretobe | 9/10 | 1608 days | 8% |
| Manuela | 10/10 | 1669 days | 6% |
| Shar-ron & Jim | 9/10 | 1669 days | 6% |
| Holly J | 8/10 | 1731 days | 5% |
| Anneke | 10/10 | 1853 days | 5% |
| Red G. | 10/10 | 1882 days | 5% |
| Thpes | 8/10 | 1913 days | 5% |
| Brad | 10/10 | 1913 days | 5% |
| Josh & Eleanor | 9/10 | 2005 days | 5% |
| Phil Bennett | 9/10 | 2035 days | 4% |
| Phil | 9/10 | 2035 days | 4% |
| Shelbi Kelly | 10/10 | 2035 days | 5% |
| Gaudenz Schnell | 10/10 | 2218 days | 4% |
| Marie van Tol | 9/10 | 2247 days | 4% |
| Beth | 10/10 | 2247 days | 4% |
| Jeremy | 9/10 | 2278 days | 4% |
| Jacqui | 10/10 | 2309 days | 4% |
| Marco | 9/10 | 2339 days | 4% |
| Ryan | 10/10 | 2370 days | 4% |
| Grizzly Girl | 10/10 | 2370 days | 4% |
| Lance | 10/10 | 2370 days | 4% |
| Daphne H | 9/10 | 2400 days | 4% |
| Cassie | 9/10 | 2400 days | 4% |
| Esther | 8/10 | 2492 days | 4% |
| Clovis C. | 10/10 | 2553 days | 4% |
| Tom J. | 9/10 | 2584 days | 3% |
| Anke | 9/10 | 2584 days | 3% |
| S Weslake | 9/10 | 2584 days | 3% |
| Tom Meulders | 5/10 | 2656 days | 3% |
| Joe Trigg | 5/10 | 2706 days | 2% |
| Gary Prescot | 8/10 | 2737 days | 3% |
| Peter Suan | 10/10 | 2850 days | 3% |
| Lotta Vuorjoki | 10/10 | 2881 days | 3% |
| Janet Pentelow | 7/10 | 2910 days | 3% |
| Julia Kurtz | 8/10 | 2919 days | 3% |
| Tracey Leyston | 10/10 | 2959 days | 3% |
| Kati Behrendt | 9/10 | 2967 days | 3% |
| Tombeadle | 10/10 | 2976 days | 3% |
| Peter Armstrong | 6/10 | 2976 days | 2% |
| Erich Brueggermann | 7/10 | 3006 days | 2% |
| Rebecca Lindsey | 7/10 | 3007 days | 2% |
| Robert Hunt | 8/10 | 3049 days | 2% |
| Sheryl Hicks | 8/10 | 3071 days | 2% |
| Ivan Wee | 10/10 | 3075 days | 2% |
| Daphne H | 9/10 | 3123 days | 2% |
| Daniel Gold | 10/10 | 3221 days | 2% |
| william Sinclair | 10/10 | 3221 days | 2% |
| samuele cason | 10/10 | 3252 days | 2% |
| Wayne Jeskie | 9/10 | 3263 days | 2% |
| Ray Tombs | 10/10 | 3273 days | 2% |
| Julian Minnis | 10/10 | 3274 days | 2% |
| Jean Evans | 10/10 | 3313 days | 2% |
| Richard Thorpe | 7/10 | 3318 days | 2% |
| Philippa and Adam | 9/10 | 3329 days | 2% |
| Mike Awater | 10/10 | 3331 days | 2% |
| Julia Rey | 10/10 | 3339 days | 2% |
| Henry Gann | 10/10 | 3341 days | 2% |
| Jenn | 10/10 | 3371 days | 2% |
| Brian Gray | 10/10 | 3373 days | 2% |
| Meta bobnar | 9/10 | 3464 days | 2% |
| Kirsty Longland | 10/10 | 3497 days | 2% |
| Wolfgang Rank | 10/10 | 3648 days | 1% |
| Stephanie Poppe | 7/10 | 3654 days | 1% |
| Esther Itier | 8/10 | 3674 days | 1% |
| Thomas Neron | 8/10 | 3674 days | 1% |
| Jaron Frost | 10/10 | 3679 days | 1% |
| Pete Arney | 9/10 | 3680 days | 1% |
| Averil Brown | 9/10 | 3705 days | 1% |
| Janie James | 10/10 | 3738 days | 1% |
| Enrico Anna | 10/10 | 3738 days | 1% |
| mark radford | 10/10 | 3738 days | 1% |
| Bjorn Privat | 10/10 | 3747 days | 1% |
| Ingrid Harder | 10/10 | 3769 days | 1% |
| Joanne Robertson | 8/10 | 3777 days | 1% |
| johno Tunnell | 9/10 | 3799 days | 1% |
| Karen Boot | 8/10 | 3799 days | 1% |
| Emma Barr | 10/10 | 3799 days | 1% |
| Nicola Whelan Henderson | 10/10 | 3799 days | 1% |
| Ellen McKee | 10/10 | 3799 days | 1% |
| Scott kearney | 10/10 | 3799 days | 1% |
| Lucas MacDonald | 10/10 | 3799 days | 1% |
| Hartwig Crailsheim | 10/10 | 3799 days | 1% |
| kim haward | 10/10 | 3892 days | 1% |
| Alan Williams | 10/10 | 4013 days | 1% |
| Thomas Hölscher | 10/10 | 4013 days | 1% |
| Thomas Walsh | 9/10 | 4045 days | 1% |
| Steve Fraser | 5/10 | 4073 days | 0% |
| Lee D | 1/10 | 4288 days | 0% |
| Alex Laidlaw | 5/10 | 4507 days | 0% |
| Sander Heike | 8/10 | 4747 days | 1% |
| Monika Kneidl | 7/10 | 4750 days | 1% |
| Lorna Williams | 7/10 | 4770 days | 1% |
| Hilbert vanEssen | 3/10 | 4772 days | 0% |
| Ed & Katie Riches | 6/10 | 4787 days | 0% |
| Preben vil Helmsen | 6/10 | 4787 days | 0% |
| Thomas & Ruth Hardmeier | 1/10 | 4792 days | 0% |
| Kurt & Noemi Buhler | 1/10 | 4799 days | 0% |
| Des & Ann Bidwell | 6/10 | 4799 days | 0% |
| Dugald McCallum | 5/10 | 4803 days | 0% |
| James McColl | 10/10 | 4896 days | 1% |
| Powerfamily | 8/10 | 5019 days | 1% |
| Jaime Ress | 8/10 | 5121 days | 1% |
| Cory Wornell | 10/10 | 5130 days | 1% |
| Thelia Beament | 8/10 | 5144 days | 1% |
| Tim Wright | 7/10 | 5167 days | 1% |
| SonjaG | 5/10 | 5857 days | 0% |
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 Riverside Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.40% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 59 days. However the Riverside 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 Riverside Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 21 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 18 | -0.34% |
| 19 | -0.36% |
| 20 | -0.38% |
| 21 | -0.40% |
| 22 | -0.42% |
| 23 | -0.44% |
| 24 | -0.46% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.49% 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
95%
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.