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 Portobello Village Tourist 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.
Portobello Village Tourist Park
Valid Reviews
112 Valid Reviews
The Portobello Village Tourist Park experience has a total of 112 valid reviews. There are no 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 112 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 15 |
|
13% |
| 9/10 | 25 |
|
22% |
| 8/10 | 34 |
|
30% |
| 7/10 | 18 |
|
16% |
| 6/10 | 14 |
|
13% |
| 5/10 | 3 |
|
3% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
78.48% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Portobello Village Tourist Park valid reviews is 78.48% and is based on 112 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
30 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 112 valid reviews, the experience has 30 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 30 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 6 |
|
20% |
| 9/10 | 7 |
|
23% |
| 8/10 | 9 |
|
30% |
| 7/10 | 3 |
|
10% |
| 6/10 | 3 |
|
10% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
80.67% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Portobello Village Tourist Park face-to-face reviews is 80.67% and is based on 30 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
81.37%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paul | 8/10 | 66 days | 100% |
| Rich | 7/10 | 158 days | 94% |
| Eline | 6/10 | 249 days | 85% |
| Laurie | 9/10 | 280 days | 97% |
| Hannah | 10/10 | 308 days | 97% |
| Shaun | 10/10 | 308 days | 97% |
| Anne | 8/10 | 339 days | 94% |
| Fredrik | 6/10 | 339 days | 82% |
| Nicolas | 7/10 | 431 days | 85% |
| Hayley | 9/10 | 492 days | 87% |
| Lindsay Byrnes | 8/10 | 614 days | 79% |
| Fabienne | 8/10 | 645 days | 76% |
| Ian Garcia | 8/10 | 674 days | 74% |
| Tine Warner | 9/10 | 705 days | 73% |
| Joel Fryett | 6/10 | 705 days | 63% |
| Loam | 6/10 | 705 days | 63% |
| M.K. | 9/10 | 797 days | 65% |
| Ryli West | 8/10 | 980 days | 46% |
| Steve | 9/10 | 1011 days | 43% |
| Jake | 10/10 | 1039 days | 41% |
| Arie | 7/10 | 1070 days | 36% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 1101 days | 35% |
| Debby | 9/10 | 1131 days | 33% |
| Lothar Valentijn | 10/10 | 1131 days | 33% |
| Sarah | 9/10 | 1131 days | 33% |
| Colin | 8/10 | 1162 days | 30% |
| Lisa | 10/10 | 1284 days | 22% |
| Anne S | 9/10 | 1376 days | 17% |
| Ana and Rob | 8/10 | 1953 days | 5% |
| Sandy | 9/10 | 1984 days | 5% |
| Maria | 6/10 | 2106 days | 4% |
| M&P | 8/10 | 2135 days | 4% |
| Tom Z. | 9/10 | 2166 days | 4% |
| Tea | 8/10 | 2197 days | 4% |
| Sue W | 8/10 | 2227 days | 4% |
| Maryline | 9/10 | 2441 days | 4% |
| Esa | 7/10 | 2472 days | 4% |
| Vincent | 9/10 | 2472 days | 4% |
| TP&MM | 8/10 | 2472 days | 4% |
| Chantal | 10/10 | 2562 days | 4% |
| James & Kerry | 9/10 | 2592 days | 3% |
| Melinda Pyke | 8/10 | 2653 days | 3% |
| Grizzly Girl | 8/10 | 2653 days | 3% |
| Esteban | 8/10 | 2806 days | 3% |
| Bridget Cumming | 7/10 | 2844 days | 3% |
| M A Pelton | 10/10 | 2847 days | 3% |
| UK 50-something couple | 8/10 | 2865 days | 3% |
| Suzanne Wijsman | 9/10 | 2873 days | 3% |
| Sandra Jeffers | 6/10 | 2973 days | 2% |
| Howard Morris | 8/10 | 2989 days | 3% |
| Geoff Steele | 7/10 | 3017 days | 2% |
| Matthias Wohlgemuth | 7/10 | 3244 days | 2% |
| sara hoeflaken | 8/10 | 3258 days | 2% |
| Roeland Driessen | 8/10 | 3260 days | 2% |
| Cyrielle Vallat | 6/10 | 3316 days | 2% |
| Susan H | 10/10 | 3355 days | 2% |
| Ruth Hernandez | 8/10 | 3357 days | 2% |
| Kate | 8/10 | 3490 days | 2% |
| Joanna du Toit | 7/10 | 3647 days | 1% |
| Yvonne Wu | 8/10 | 3871 days | 1% |
| Soizic Vandermeersch | 7/10 | 3894 days | 1% |
| Rossco | 6/10 | 3901 days | 1% |
| Erica b | 7/10 | 3901 days | 1% |
| Larry Dashiell | 9/10 | 3932 days | 1% |
| June Harris | 6/10 | 3991 days | 1% |
| Matthias Thorn | 7/10 | 3991 days | 1% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 4176 days | 0% |
| travelscot | 9/10 | 4237 days | 0% |
| Patricia Revel | 9/10 | 4268 days | 0% |
| Katarina | 10/10 | 4269 days | 0% |
| Gillian Scott | 7/10 | 4296 days | 0% |
| Julie Robinson | 7/10 | 4313 days | 0% |
| Julien de la lande | 6/10 | 4339 days | 0% |
| Wouter Bosch | 7/10 | 4339 days | 0% |
| Aude Moulin | 5/10 | 4339 days | 0% |
| Maya Bakker-deDreu | 8/10 | 4347 days | 0% |
| JoMary Smith | 8/10 | 4357 days | 0% |
| 2 tent travelers from Montreal | 5/10 | 4388 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4632 days | 1% |
| Bertiethebus | 8/10 | 4663 days | 1% |
| Kadyan | 6/10 | 4663 days | 1% |
| Malgorzata | 6/10 | 4667 days | 1% |
| Moni Sangoi | 7/10 | 4691 days | 1% |
| Puma17 | 7/10 | 4722 days | 1% |
| David | 5/10 | 4722 days | 1% |
| Auger | 10/10 | 4760 days | 1% |
| Auger | 10/10 | 4760 days | 1% |
| Mike & Jennie | 8/10 | 5039 days | 1% |
| Balonno | 3/10 | 5088 days | 1% |
| lydzb | 6/10 | 5119 days | 1% |
| ncopas | 1/10 | 5119 days | 0% |
| Annie Breton | 6/10 | 5377 days | 1% |
| Robin Smith | 10/10 | 5380 days | 1% |
| Jim & Rebecca | 9/10 | 5386 days | 1% |
| Tony & Marina Greenaway | 8/10 | 5387 days | 1% |
| Chris | 8/10 | 5388 days | 1% |
| LandJ | 9/10 | 5394 days | 1% |
| Manfred & Gabi | 9/10 | 5405 days | 1% |
| Frank Lehe | 8/10 | 5407 days | 1% |
| Marieke and Bert-Jan | 8/10 | 5410 days | 1% |
| Roy Seymour | 8/10 | 5413 days | 1% |
| Sabine | 9/10 | 5672 days | 1% |
| Anna | 9/10 | 5677 days | 1% |
| Siebels Wilke | 8/10 | 5691 days | 1% |
| Peter Aerborg | 9/10 | 5695 days | 1% |
| Peter Brown | 10/10 | 5755 days | 1% |
| John Cox | 8/10 | 5765 days | 1% |
| Helmet Paula | 3/10 | 5772 days | 0% |
| Lorena | 10/10 | 5787 days | 1% |
| Alexis De Wilde | 9/10 | 5859 days | 1% |
| Decuq | 7/10 | 5860 days | 1% |
| Vivien Williams | 10/10 | 6111 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 Portobello Village Tourist Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.73% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 42 days. However the Portobello Village Tourist 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 Portobello Village Tourist Park experience has been adjusted for 36 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 33 | -0.67% |
| 34 | -0.69% |
| 35 | -0.71% |
| 36 | -0.73% |
| 37 | -0.75% |
| 38 | -0.77% |
| 39 | -0.79% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.82% 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
84%
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.