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 Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks.
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.
Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks
Valid Reviews
135 Valid Reviews
The Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks experience has a total of 137 reviews. There are 135 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 2 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 135 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 16 |
|
12% |
| 9/10 | 30 |
|
22% |
| 8/10 | 35 |
|
26% |
| 7/10 | 22 |
|
16% |
| 6/10 | 15 |
|
11% |
| 5/10 | 8 |
|
6% |
| 4/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
75.26% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks valid reviews is 75.26% and is based on 135 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
75 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 135 valid reviews, the experience has 75 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 75 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 12 |
|
16% |
| 9/10 | 16 |
|
21% |
| 8/10 | 20 |
|
27% |
| 7/10 | 14 |
|
19% |
| 6/10 | 7 |
|
9% |
| 5/10 | 4 |
|
5% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
78.93% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks face-to-face reviews is 78.93% and is based on 75 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
73.16%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| RM | 3/10 | 23 days | 55% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 84 days | 100% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 542 days | 83% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 603 days | 80% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 603 days | 33% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 692 days | 30% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 784 days | 65% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 1453 days | 12% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 1941 days | 5% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2064 days | 3% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2064 days | 4% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2153 days | 4% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2184 days | 4% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2276 days | 4% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 2459 days | 4% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 2459 days | 4% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 2518 days | 4% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 2528 days | 3% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 2562 days | 3% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 2568 days | 4% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 2643 days | 3% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 2667 days | 3% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 2702 days | 3% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 2785 days | 3% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 2898 days | 3% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3058 days | 3% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3216 days | 2% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3234 days | 2% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3260 days | 2% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3274 days | 2% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 3371 days | 2% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 3377 days | 2% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 3513 days | 2% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 3555 days | 1% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 3586 days | 2% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 3586 days | 2% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 3614 days | 1% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 3614 days | 1% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 3649 days | 1% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 3667 days | 1% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 3676 days | 1% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 3921 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 3975 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 3979 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4010 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4010 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4041 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4041 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4071 days | 0% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4132 days | 0% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4285 days | 0% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4285 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4326 days | 0% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4337 days | 0% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4344 days | 0% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 4375 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 4392 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 4395 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 4397 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 4673 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 4681 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 4684 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 4690 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 4691 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 4694 days | 1% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 4696 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 4703 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 4704 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 4709 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 4721 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 4723 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 4723 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 4736 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 4741 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 4779 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 4785 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 4789 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 4802 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 4863 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 4986 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5030 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5039 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5050 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5051 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5070 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5070 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5070 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5071 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5106 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5137 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5198 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5198 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5228 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 5387 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 5400 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5402 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 5403 days | 1% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 5404 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 5407 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 5414 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 5418 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 5421 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 5421 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5422 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 5422 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 5426 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 5426 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 5434 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 5436 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 5437 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 5439 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 5449 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 5449 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 5454 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5460 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 5486 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 5494 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 5506 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 5514 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 5514 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 5515 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 5524 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 5529 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 5546 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 5685 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 5727 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 5738 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 5746 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 5748 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 5758 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 5759 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 5766 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 5766 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 5780 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 5780 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 Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.08% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 41 days. However the Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks 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 Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks experience has been adjusted for 4 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 1 | -0.02% |
| 2 | -0.04% |
| 3 | -0.06% |
| 4 | -0.08% |
| 5 | -0.10% |
| 6 | -0.12% |
| 7 | -0.14% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
5.45% 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
79%
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.