Kia ora, 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
77.25%
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 | 52 days | 100% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 510 days | 84% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 571 days | 82% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 571 days | 33% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 660 days | 31% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 752 days | 68% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 1421 days | 13% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 1909 days | 5% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2032 days | 3% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2032 days | 4% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2121 days | 4% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2152 days | 4% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2244 days | 4% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 2427 days | 4% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 2427 days | 4% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 2486 days | 4% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 2496 days | 3% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 2530 days | 3% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 2536 days | 4% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 2611 days | 3% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 2635 days | 3% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 2670 days | 3% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 2753 days | 3% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 2866 days | 3% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3026 days | 3% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3184 days | 2% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3202 days | 2% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3228 days | 2% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3242 days | 2% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 3339 days | 2% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 3345 days | 2% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 3481 days | 2% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 3522 days | 1% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 3553 days | 2% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 3553 days | 2% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 3581 days | 2% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 3581 days | 1% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 3617 days | 1% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 3635 days | 1% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 3643 days | 1% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 3889 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 3943 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 3947 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 3977 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 3978 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4009 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4009 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4039 days | 0% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4100 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4253 days | 0% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4253 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4294 days | 0% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4305 days | 0% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4312 days | 0% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 4343 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 4360 days | 0% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 4363 days | 0% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 4365 days | 0% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 4641 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 4649 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 4652 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 4658 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 4659 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 4662 days | 1% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 4664 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 4671 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 4672 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 4677 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 4689 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 4691 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 4691 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 4704 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 4709 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 4747 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 4753 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 4757 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 4770 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 4831 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 4954 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 4998 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5007 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5018 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5019 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5038 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5038 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5038 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5039 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5074 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5105 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5166 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5166 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5196 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 5355 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 5368 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5370 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 5371 days | 1% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 5372 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 5375 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 5382 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 5386 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 5389 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 5389 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5390 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 5390 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 5394 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 5394 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 5402 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 5404 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 5405 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 5407 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 5417 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 5417 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 5422 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5428 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 5454 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 5462 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 5474 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 5482 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 5482 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 5483 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 5492 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 5497 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 5514 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 5653 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 5695 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 5706 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 5714 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 5716 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 5726 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 5727 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 5734 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 5734 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 5748 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 5748 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
-0.85% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 43 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 42 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 39 | -0.79% |
| 40 | -0.81% |
| 41 | -0.83% |
| 42 | -0.85% |
| 43 | -0.87% |
| 44 | -0.89% |
| 45 | -0.91% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.13% 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.
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.