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 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
134 Valid Reviews
The Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks experience has a total of 136 reviews. There are 134 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 134 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 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
75.60% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks valid reviews is 75.60% and is based on 134 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 134 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
77.19%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aoife | 9/10 | 31 days | 100% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 489 days | 86% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 550 days | 84% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 550 days | 34% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 639 days | 31% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 731 days | 70% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 1400 days | 14% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 1888 days | 5% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2011 days | 3% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2011 days | 4% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2100 days | 4% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2131 days | 4% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2223 days | 4% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 2406 days | 4% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 2406 days | 4% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 2465 days | 4% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 2475 days | 3% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 2509 days | 3% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 2515 days | 4% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 2590 days | 3% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 2614 days | 3% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 2649 days | 3% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 2732 days | 3% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 2845 days | 3% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3005 days | 3% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3163 days | 2% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3181 days | 2% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3207 days | 2% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3221 days | 2% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 3318 days | 2% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 3324 days | 2% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 3460 days | 2% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 3502 days | 1% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 3533 days | 2% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 3533 days | 2% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 3561 days | 2% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 3561 days | 1% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 3596 days | 1% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 3614 days | 1% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 3623 days | 1% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 3868 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 3922 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 3926 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 3957 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 3957 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 3988 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 3988 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4018 days | 0% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4079 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4232 days | 0% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4232 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4273 days | 0% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4284 days | 0% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4291 days | 0% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 4322 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 4339 days | 0% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 4342 days | 0% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 4344 days | 0% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 4620 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 4628 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 4631 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 4637 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 4638 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 4641 days | 1% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 4643 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 4650 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 4651 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 4656 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 4668 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 4670 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 4670 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 4683 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 4688 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 4726 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 4732 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 4736 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 4749 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 4810 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 4933 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 4977 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 4986 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 4997 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 4998 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5017 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5017 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5017 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5018 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5053 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5084 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5145 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5145 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5175 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 5334 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 5347 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5349 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 5350 days | 1% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 5351 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 5354 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 5361 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 5365 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 5368 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 5368 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5369 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 5369 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 5373 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 5373 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 5381 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 5383 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 5384 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 5386 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 5396 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 5396 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 5401 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5407 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 5433 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 5441 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 5453 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 5461 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 5461 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 5462 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 5471 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 5476 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 5493 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 5632 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 5674 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 5685 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 5693 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 5695 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 5705 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 5706 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 5713 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 5713 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 5727 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 5727 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
-0.41% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 50 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 21 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 18 | -0.35% |
| 19 | -0.37% |
| 20 | -0.39% |
| 21 | -0.41% |
| 22 | -0.43% |
| 23 | -0.44% |
| 24 | -0.46% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
3.99% 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
81%
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.