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 Wanaka Hampshire 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.
Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
144 Valid Reviews
The Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park experience has a total of 147 reviews. There are 144 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 3 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 144 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 23 |
|
16% |
| 9/10 | 27 |
|
19% |
| 8/10 | 32 |
|
22% |
| 7/10 | 19 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 19 |
|
13% |
| 5/10 | 13 |
|
9% |
| 4/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
74.24% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park valid reviews is 74.24% and is based on 144 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
34 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 144 valid reviews, the experience has 34 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 34 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 2 |
|
6% |
| 9/10 | 3 |
|
9% |
| 8/10 | 7 |
|
21% |
| 7/10 | 2 |
|
6% |
| 6/10 | 7 |
|
21% |
| 5/10 | 7 |
|
21% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
6% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
9% |
60.88% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 60.88% and is based on 34 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
84.34%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dean | 10/10 | 110 days | 100% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 232 days | 97% |
| Hannah | 10/10 | 232 days | 98% |
| Jorian | 6/10 | 263 days | 83% |
| Lou | 10/10 | 292 days | 96% |
| Tal Tal | 10/10 | 323 days | 95% |
| Donna Harbidge | 9/10 | 445 days | 88% |
| Charlie | 9/10 | 476 days | 87% |
| Henry | 9/10 | 507 days | 85% |
| Amy Catley | 6/10 | 568 days | 71% |
| FitzHanss | 10/10 | 629 days | 78% |
| Lieke | 4/10 | 657 days | 50% |
| Ju | 4/10 | 657 days | 50% |
| Alexandra | 9/10 | 688 days | 73% |
| Aiden | 6/10 | 688 days | 63% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 688 days | 73% |
| RR | 9/10 | 719 days | 70% |
| Sophie | 8/10 | 719 days | 70% |
| Amel | 10/10 | 719 days | 71% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 719 days | 70% |
| Evan | 8/10 | 749 days | 67% |
| Marcus | 3/10 | 749 days | 37% |
| Rebecca Woodbridge | 8/10 | 749 days | 67% |
| Eoin from Ireland | 10/10 | 780 days | 66% |
| Hannah and Matthew | 7/10 | 841 days | 56% |
| Justin | 10/10 | 1053 days | 39% |
| Wayne | 10/10 | 1145 days | 31% |
| Karthik | 10/10 | 1328 days | 19% |
| Thomas neil | 9/10 | 1359 days | 17% |
| Ange | 10/10 | 1418 days | 14% |
| Rach | 8/10 | 1479 days | 12% |
| Grace | 10/10 | 1479 days | 12% |
| JS | 8/10 | 1540 days | 9% |
| Jed Barnett | 10/10 | 1753 days | 5% |
| Clauds | 9/10 | 1753 days | 5% |
| Amanda | 8/10 | 1784 days | 5% |
| Fran | 9/10 | 1815 days | 5% |
| Sheri | 10/10 | 1845 days | 5% |
| Linda QLD | 9/10 | 1998 days | 4% |
| Lisanne | 7/10 | 2059 days | 4% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2090 days | 4% |
| John | 3/10 | 2090 days | 2% |
| Michi | 9/10 | 2090 days | 4% |
| Jacqui | 8/10 | 2149 days | 4% |
| Inna | 10/10 | 2149 days | 4% |
| Tac | 9/10 | 2149 days | 4% |
| Anwang | 7/10 | 2180 days | 4% |
| Juraj | 7/10 | 2180 days | 4% |
| Kelsie | 9/10 | 2210 days | 4% |
| Nifty | 8/10 | 2210 days | 4% |
| Violet Murphy | 5/10 | 2241 days | 3% |
| Philip Page | 7/10 | 2241 days | 4% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2241 days | 4% |
| Adva Cohen | 1/10 | 2271 days | 2% |
| Rachel | 8/10 | 2271 days | 4% |
| Holly Bartholomew | 7/10 | 2271 days | 4% |
| Cassie | 8/10 | 2271 days | 4% |
| Andres | 10/10 | 2302 days | 4% |
| Abu Samah Harun | 10/10 | 2333 days | 4% |
| Bex & Jake | 9/10 | 2394 days | 4% |
| Nathaniel Bond | 9/10 | 2453 days | 3% |
| Nicky Edwards | 9/10 | 2468 days | 4% |
| Hanneke van Dijk | 6/10 | 2488 days | 2% |
| Rogier van de Wiel | 8/10 | 2494 days | 3% |
| Helen Bond | 10/10 | 2514 days | 4% |
| Leong Mee Yee | 8/10 | 2516 days | 3% |
| Meijerelske | 9/10 | 2520 days | 3% |
| Laura Meelynn | 8/10 | 2544 days | 3% |
| Joe Trigg | 8/10 | 2586 days | 3% |
| Jenna Neivandt | 10/10 | 2626 days | 3% |
| Jozef Pinkerton | 6/10 | 2626 days | 3% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 2658 days | 3% |
| Chloe Watson | 8/10 | 2691 days | 3% |
| Duncan | 7/10 | 2743 days | 3% |
| Marc Lambert | 5/10 | 2795 days | 2% |
| Renard D | 5/10 | 2823 days | 2% |
| Daniel Andersson | 8/10 | 2847 days | 3% |
| Victoria Strong | 8/10 | 2877 days | 3% |
| David Townsend | 6/10 | 2928 days | 2% |
| Alicia McCormick | 6/10 | 3054 days | 2% |
| W Donovan | 8/10 | 3130 days | 2% |
| Wayne Jeskie | 5/10 | 3141 days | 2% |
| phillip dudman | 7/10 | 3141 days | 2% |
| Sara Dimnik | 7/10 | 3167 days | 2% |
| Sean Stevens | 8/10 | 3186 days | 2% |
| Corina Sima | 8/10 | 3192 days | 2% |
| Perrine Pilate | 8/10 | 3203 days | 2% |
| Helen James | 6/10 | 3215 days | 2% |
| Alex Macdonald | 6/10 | 3244 days | 2% |
| Harriet Bramley | 7/10 | 3370 days | 2% |
| Mitchell Henderson | 6/10 | 3396 days | 1% |
| Amy Steiger | 7/10 | 3397 days | 2% |
| Shelley | 5/10 | 3421 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 6/10 | 3466 days | 1% |
| Alistair Millward | 7/10 | 3547 days | 1% |
| Sam Smith | 5/10 | 3550 days | 1% |
| Adam Wight | 6/10 | 3553 days | 1% |
| Sebastiaan Kemperman | 6/10 | 3565 days | 1% |
| Wilma Senior | 7/10 | 3578 days | 1% |
| Stefanie Feldman | 7/10 | 3598 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Weight | 8/10 | 3602 days | 1% |
| Alexis Leneveu | 10/10 | 3617 days | 1% |
| Viki Ziemba | 9/10 | 3634 days | 1% |
| Bert Snel | 9/10 | 3670 days | 1% |
| Claudia | 10/10 | 3731 days | 1% |
| Ane Didriksen | 6/10 | 3882 days | 0% |
| Iris Anette Berger | 6/10 | 3882 days | 0% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 3885 days | 1% |
| JoMary Smith | 7/10 | 3944 days | 1% |
| catherine welsh | 6/10 | 3975 days | 1% |
| andrewmh | 8/10 | 4006 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 8/10 | 4036 days | 0% |
| Jitka Krejcova | 10/10 | 4267 days | 0% |
| Bertiethebus | 7/10 | 4281 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 9/10 | 4291 days | 0% |
| Peter & Kate Carmichael | 8/10 | 4657 days | 1% |
| Aoife Lillis | 9/10 | 4663 days | 1% |
| G Tulloch | 1/10 | 4975 days | 0% |
| Sally Reeves | 1/10 | 4991 days | 0% |
| Hanggi | 10/10 | 4992 days | 1% |
| Julie | 5/10 | 4994 days | 0% |
| Alex | 7/10 | 4999 days | 1% |
| Eddie Stevens | 5/10 | 5006 days | 0% |
| Claudia Vermeer | 8/10 | 5026 days | 1% |
| Gillian de Vries | 6/10 | 5033 days | 0% |
| dollimyxture | 7/10 | 5102 days | 1% |
| Polil | 5/10 | 5363 days | 0% |
| Marcus Kippner | 8/10 | 5368 days | 1% |
| Barbara & Sven | 5/10 | 5379 days | 0% |
| Rolf X | 6/10 | 5387 days | 0% |
| Schygulla | 8/10 | 5397 days | 1% |
| Sinjc Grude | 8/10 | 5402 days | 1% |
| Lorena | 9/10 | 5405 days | 1% |
| Ross & Catherine Litherland | 2/10 | 5418 days | 0% |
| asselman | 4/10 | 5452 days | 0% |
| Decuq | 5/10 | 5478 days | 0% |
| paulandcathy | 5/10 | 5522 days | 0% |
| Kelly | 5/10 | 5622 days | 0% |
| OliverG1 | 8/10 | 5699 days | 1% |
| JoR | 4/10 | 5699 days | 0% |
| Vivien Williams | 1/10 | 5729 days | 0% |
| MetteK | 8/10 | 5745 days | 1% |
| Lucas | 6/10 | 5754 days | 0% |
| Frank | 7/10 | 5754 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 Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-1.78% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 44 days. However the Wanaka Hampshire 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 Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 88 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 85 | -1.72% |
| 86 | -1.74% |
| 87 | -1.76% |
| 88 | -1.78% |
| 89 | -1.80% |
| 90 | -1.82% |
| 91 | -1.84% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.35% 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
85%
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.