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 | 63 days | 100% |
| Felix Koester | 10/10 | 125 days | 99% |
| EI | 9/10 | 155 days | 98% |
| Ellie | 9/10 | 186 days | 97% |
| Kay | 9/10 | 369 days | 92% |
| Georgie | 10/10 | 400 days | 91% |
| Doreen Kirk | 8/10 | 400 days | 89% |
| Emma B | 10/10 | 429 days | 90% |
| Dylan | 10/10 | 613 days | 79% |
| Tzan from CA | 10/10 | 644 days | 76% |
| Julie | 10/10 | 705 days | 72% |
| Tom | 10/10 | 794 days | 64% |
| Amy Shoemake | 10/10 | 856 days | 58% |
| Evan | 10/10 | 886 days | 55% |
| Roxanne | 10/10 | 1251 days | 24% |
| Cera | 10/10 | 1404 days | 15% |
| Wayne Ravelich | 8/10 | 1496 days | 11% |
| Clive | 10/10 | 1555 days | 9% |
| Tourist in my own country | 1/10 | 1555 days | 4% |
| Jade Bray | 9/10 | 1555 days | 9% |
| Harry | 10/10 | 1555 days | 9% |
| Dan | 9/10 | 1616 days | 7% |
| Teesh K | 9/10 | 1616 days | 7% |
| Daretobe | 9/10 | 1616 days | 7% |
| Manuela | 10/10 | 1677 days | 6% |
| Shar-ron & Jim | 9/10 | 1677 days | 6% |
| Holly J | 8/10 | 1739 days | 5% |
| Anneke | 10/10 | 1861 days | 5% |
| Red G. | 10/10 | 1890 days | 5% |
| Thpes | 8/10 | 1921 days | 5% |
| Brad | 10/10 | 1921 days | 5% |
| Josh & Eleanor | 9/10 | 2013 days | 5% |
| Phil Bennett | 9/10 | 2043 days | 4% |
| Phil | 9/10 | 2043 days | 4% |
| Shelbi Kelly | 10/10 | 2043 days | 5% |
| Gaudenz Schnell | 10/10 | 2227 days | 4% |
| Marie van Tol | 9/10 | 2255 days | 4% |
| Beth | 10/10 | 2255 days | 4% |
| Jeremy | 9/10 | 2286 days | 4% |
| Jacqui | 10/10 | 2317 days | 4% |
| Marco | 9/10 | 2347 days | 4% |
| Ryan | 10/10 | 2378 days | 4% |
| Grizzly Girl | 10/10 | 2378 days | 4% |
| Lance | 10/10 | 2378 days | 4% |
| Daphne H | 9/10 | 2408 days | 4% |
| Cassie | 9/10 | 2408 days | 4% |
| Esther | 8/10 | 2500 days | 4% |
| Clovis C. | 10/10 | 2561 days | 4% |
| Tom J. | 9/10 | 2592 days | 3% |
| Anke | 9/10 | 2592 days | 3% |
| S Weslake | 9/10 | 2592 days | 3% |
| Tom Meulders | 5/10 | 2664 days | 3% |
| Joe Trigg | 5/10 | 2714 days | 2% |
| Gary Prescot | 8/10 | 2745 days | 3% |
| Peter Suan | 10/10 | 2858 days | 3% |
| Lotta Vuorjoki | 10/10 | 2889 days | 3% |
| Janet Pentelow | 7/10 | 2918 days | 3% |
| Julia Kurtz | 8/10 | 2927 days | 3% |
| Tracey Leyston | 10/10 | 2967 days | 3% |
| Kati Behrendt | 9/10 | 2975 days | 3% |
| Tombeadle | 10/10 | 2985 days | 3% |
| Peter Armstrong | 6/10 | 2985 days | 2% |
| Erich Brueggermann | 7/10 | 3014 days | 2% |
| Rebecca Lindsey | 7/10 | 3016 days | 2% |
| Robert Hunt | 8/10 | 3057 days | 2% |
| Sheryl Hicks | 8/10 | 3079 days | 2% |
| Ivan Wee | 10/10 | 3083 days | 2% |
| Daphne H | 9/10 | 3131 days | 2% |
| Daniel Gold | 10/10 | 3230 days | 2% |
| william Sinclair | 10/10 | 3230 days | 2% |
| samuele cason | 10/10 | 3261 days | 2% |
| Wayne Jeskie | 9/10 | 3271 days | 2% |
| Ray Tombs | 10/10 | 3281 days | 2% |
| Julian Minnis | 10/10 | 3282 days | 2% |
| Jean Evans | 10/10 | 3322 days | 2% |
| Richard Thorpe | 7/10 | 3326 days | 2% |
| Philippa and Adam | 9/10 | 3337 days | 2% |
| Mike Awater | 10/10 | 3339 days | 2% |
| Julia Rey | 10/10 | 3347 days | 2% |
| Henry Gann | 10/10 | 3349 days | 2% |
| Jenn | 10/10 | 3379 days | 2% |
| Brian Gray | 10/10 | 3382 days | 2% |
| Meta bobnar | 9/10 | 3472 days | 2% |
| Kirsty Longland | 10/10 | 3505 days | 2% |
| Wolfgang Rank | 10/10 | 3656 days | 1% |
| Stephanie Poppe | 7/10 | 3662 days | 1% |
| Esther Itier | 8/10 | 3682 days | 1% |
| Thomas Neron | 8/10 | 3682 days | 1% |
| Jaron Frost | 10/10 | 3688 days | 1% |
| Pete Arney | 9/10 | 3688 days | 1% |
| Averil Brown | 9/10 | 3713 days | 1% |
| Janie James | 10/10 | 3747 days | 1% |
| Enrico Anna | 10/10 | 3747 days | 1% |
| mark radford | 10/10 | 3747 days | 1% |
| Bjorn Privat | 10/10 | 3755 days | 1% |
| Ingrid Harder | 10/10 | 3778 days | 1% |
| Joanne Robertson | 8/10 | 3785 days | 1% |
| johno Tunnell | 9/10 | 3808 days | 1% |
| Karen Boot | 8/10 | 3808 days | 1% |
| Emma Barr | 10/10 | 3808 days | 1% |
| Nicola Whelan Henderson | 10/10 | 3808 days | 1% |
| Ellen McKee | 10/10 | 3808 days | 1% |
| Scott kearney | 10/10 | 3808 days | 1% |
| Lucas MacDonald | 10/10 | 3808 days | 1% |
| Hartwig Crailsheim | 10/10 | 3808 days | 1% |
| kim haward | 10/10 | 3900 days | 1% |
| Alan Williams | 10/10 | 4022 days | 1% |
| Thomas Hölscher | 10/10 | 4022 days | 1% |
| Thomas Walsh | 9/10 | 4053 days | 1% |
| Steve Fraser | 5/10 | 4081 days | 0% |
| Lee D | 1/10 | 4296 days | 0% |
| Alex Laidlaw | 5/10 | 4515 days | 0% |
| Sander Heike | 8/10 | 4755 days | 1% |
| Monika Kneidl | 7/10 | 4758 days | 1% |
| Lorna Williams | 7/10 | 4778 days | 1% |
| Hilbert vanEssen | 3/10 | 4780 days | 0% |
| Ed & Katie Riches | 6/10 | 4795 days | 0% |
| Preben vil Helmsen | 6/10 | 4795 days | 0% |
| Thomas & Ruth Hardmeier | 1/10 | 4800 days | 0% |
| Kurt & Noemi Buhler | 1/10 | 4807 days | 0% |
| Des & Ann Bidwell | 6/10 | 4807 days | 0% |
| Dugald McCallum | 5/10 | 4811 days | 0% |
| James McColl | 10/10 | 4904 days | 1% |
| Powerfamily | 8/10 | 5027 days | 1% |
| Jaime Ress | 8/10 | 5129 days | 1% |
| Cory Wornell | 10/10 | 5138 days | 1% |
| Thelia Beament | 8/10 | 5152 days | 1% |
| Tim Wright | 7/10 | 5175 days | 1% |
| SonjaG | 5/10 | 5865 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
-0.53% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 61 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 29 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 26 | -0.48% |
| 27 | -0.49% |
| 28 | -0.51% |
| 29 | -0.53% |
| 30 | -0.55% |
| 31 | -0.57% |
| 32 | -0.59% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.50% 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.