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 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.
![](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg width="300" height="300" viewBox="0 0 300 300" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><rect id="bg" width="300" height="300" fill="rgb(46,196,145)" /><path d="m 150 605 Q 206 94 -305 150 Q 206 206 150 -305 Q 94 206 605 150 Q 94 94 150 605 z" fill="rgb(70,136,0)" /><path d="m 150 515 Q 296 4 -215 150 Q 296 296 150 -215 Q 4 296 515 150 Q 4 4 150 515 z" fill="rgb(185,119,255)" /><path d="m 150 176 Q 165 135 124 150 Q 165 165 150 124 Q 135 165 176 150 Q 135 135 150 176 z" fill="rgb(209,59,110)" /></svg>)
Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
149 Valid Reviews
The Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park experience has a total of 152 reviews. There are 149 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 149 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 24 |
|
16% |
| 9/10 | 27 |
|
18% |
| 8/10 | 35 |
|
23% |
| 7/10 | 19 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 20 |
|
13% |
| 5/10 | 13 |
|
9% |
| 4/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
74.43% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park valid reviews is 74.43% and is based on 149 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 149 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
83.68%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shaun | 8/10 | 59 days | 98% |
| Thom S | 8/10 | 90 days | 98% |
| Diane n Dave | 10/10 | 90 days | 100% |
| Lynda k | 8/10 | 90 days | 98% |
| Anne | 6/10 | 90 days | 86% |
| Dean | 10/10 | 243 days | 97% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 365 days | 92% |
| Hannah | 10/10 | 365 days | 93% |
| Jorian | 6/10 | 396 days | 79% |
| Lou | 10/10 | 425 days | 90% |
| Tal Tal | 10/10 | 456 days | 89% |
| Donna Harbidge | 9/10 | 578 days | 80% |
| Charlie | 9/10 | 609 days | 78% |
| Henry | 9/10 | 640 days | 76% |
| Amy Catley | 6/10 | 701 days | 62% |
| FitzHanss | 10/10 | 762 days | 67% |
| Lieke | 4/10 | 790 days | 42% |
| Ju | 4/10 | 790 days | 42% |
| Alexandra | 9/10 | 821 days | 61% |
| Aiden | 6/10 | 821 days | 53% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 821 days | 61% |
| RR | 9/10 | 852 days | 58% |
| Sophie | 8/10 | 852 days | 58% |
| Amel | 10/10 | 852 days | 59% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 852 days | 58% |
| Evan | 8/10 | 882 days | 55% |
| Marcus | 3/10 | 882 days | 30% |
| Rebecca Woodbridge | 8/10 | 882 days | 55% |
| Eoin from Ireland | 10/10 | 913 days | 52% |
| Hannah and Matthew | 7/10 | 974 days | 43% |
| Justin | 10/10 | 1186 days | 28% |
| Wayne | 10/10 | 1278 days | 22% |
| Karthik | 10/10 | 1461 days | 12% |
| Thomas neil | 9/10 | 1492 days | 11% |
| Ange | 10/10 | 1551 days | 9% |
| Rach | 8/10 | 1612 days | 7% |
| Grace | 10/10 | 1612 days | 7% |
| JS | 8/10 | 1673 days | 6% |
| Jed Barnett | 10/10 | 1886 days | 5% |
| Clauds | 9/10 | 1886 days | 4% |
| Amanda | 8/10 | 1917 days | 4% |
| Fran | 9/10 | 1948 days | 4% |
| Sheri | 10/10 | 1978 days | 4% |
| Linda QLD | 9/10 | 2131 days | 4% |
| Lisanne | 7/10 | 2192 days | 4% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2223 days | 4% |
| John | 3/10 | 2223 days | 2% |
| Michi | 9/10 | 2223 days | 4% |
| Jacqui | 8/10 | 2282 days | 4% |
| Inna | 10/10 | 2282 days | 4% |
| Tac | 9/10 | 2282 days | 4% |
| Anwang | 7/10 | 2313 days | 3% |
| Juraj | 7/10 | 2313 days | 3% |
| Kelsie | 9/10 | 2343 days | 4% |
| Nifty | 8/10 | 2343 days | 4% |
| Violet Murphy | 5/10 | 2374 days | 3% |
| Philip Page | 7/10 | 2374 days | 3% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2374 days | 4% |
| Adva Cohen | 1/10 | 2404 days | 1% |
| Rachel | 8/10 | 2404 days | 3% |
| Holly Bartholomew | 7/10 | 2404 days | 3% |
| Cassie | 8/10 | 2404 days | 3% |
| Andres | 10/10 | 2435 days | 3% |
| Abu Samah Harun | 10/10 | 2466 days | 3% |
| Bex & Jake | 9/10 | 2527 days | 3% |
| Nathaniel Bond | 9/10 | 2586 days | 2% |
| Nicky Edwards | 9/10 | 2601 days | 3% |
| Hanneke van Dijk | 6/10 | 2621 days | 2% |
| Rogier van de Wiel | 8/10 | 2627 days | 3% |
| Helen Bond | 10/10 | 2647 days | 3% |
| Leong Mee Yee | 8/10 | 2649 days | 3% |
| Meijerelske | 9/10 | 2653 days | 3% |
| Laura Meelynn | 8/10 | 2677 days | 3% |
| Joe Trigg | 8/10 | 2719 days | 3% |
| Jenna Neivandt | 10/10 | 2759 days | 3% |
| Jozef Pinkerton | 6/10 | 2759 days | 2% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 2791 days | 3% |
| Chloe Watson | 8/10 | 2824 days | 3% |
| Duncan | 7/10 | 2876 days | 2% |
| Marc Lambert | 5/10 | 2928 days | 2% |
| Renard D | 5/10 | 2956 days | 2% |
| Daniel Andersson | 8/10 | 2980 days | 2% |
| Victoria Strong | 8/10 | 3010 days | 2% |
| David Townsend | 6/10 | 3061 days | 2% |
| Alicia McCormick | 6/10 | 3187 days | 2% |
| W Donovan | 8/10 | 3263 days | 2% |
| Wayne Jeskie | 5/10 | 3274 days | 1% |
| phillip dudman | 7/10 | 3274 days | 2% |
| Sara Dimnik | 7/10 | 3300 days | 2% |
| Sean Stevens | 8/10 | 3319 days | 2% |
| Corina Sima | 8/10 | 3325 days | 2% |
| Perrine Pilate | 8/10 | 3336 days | 2% |
| Helen James | 6/10 | 3348 days | 1% |
| Alex Macdonald | 6/10 | 3378 days | 1% |
| Harriet Bramley | 7/10 | 3503 days | 1% |
| Mitchell Henderson | 6/10 | 3529 days | 1% |
| Amy Steiger | 7/10 | 3531 days | 1% |
| Shelley | 5/10 | 3554 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 6/10 | 3599 days | 1% |
| Alistair Millward | 7/10 | 3680 days | 1% |
| Sam Smith | 5/10 | 3684 days | 1% |
| Adam Wight | 6/10 | 3686 days | 1% |
| Sebastiaan Kemperman | 6/10 | 3698 days | 1% |
| Wilma Senior | 7/10 | 3712 days | 1% |
| Stefanie Feldman | 7/10 | 3731 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Weight | 8/10 | 3735 days | 1% |
| Alexis Leneveu | 10/10 | 3750 days | 1% |
| Viki Ziemba | 9/10 | 3767 days | 1% |
| Bert Snel | 9/10 | 3804 days | 1% |
| Claudia | 10/10 | 3865 days | 1% |
| Ane Didriksen | 6/10 | 4015 days | 0% |
| Iris Anette Berger | 6/10 | 4015 days | 0% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 4018 days | 0% |
| JoMary Smith | 7/10 | 4077 days | 0% |
| catherine welsh | 6/10 | 4108 days | 0% |
| andrewmh | 8/10 | 4139 days | 0% |
| PipandJon | 8/10 | 4169 days | 0% |
| Jitka Krejcova | 10/10 | 4400 days | 0% |
| Bertiethebus | 7/10 | 4414 days | 1% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 9/10 | 4424 days | 0% |
| Peter & Kate Carmichael | 8/10 | 4790 days | 0% |
| Aoife Lillis | 9/10 | 4796 days | 0% |
| G Tulloch | 1/10 | 5108 days | 0% |
| Sally Reeves | 1/10 | 5124 days | 0% |
| Hanggi | 10/10 | 5125 days | 0% |
| Julie | 5/10 | 5127 days | 0% |
| Alex | 7/10 | 5132 days | 0% |
| Eddie Stevens | 5/10 | 5139 days | 0% |
| Claudia Vermeer | 8/10 | 5159 days | 0% |
| Gillian de Vries | 6/10 | 5166 days | 0% |
| dollimyxture | 7/10 | 5235 days | 1% |
| Polil | 5/10 | 5496 days | 0% |
| Marcus Kippner | 8/10 | 5501 days | 0% |
| Barbara & Sven | 5/10 | 5512 days | 0% |
| Rolf X | 6/10 | 5520 days | 0% |
| Schygulla | 8/10 | 5530 days | 0% |
| Sinjc Grude | 8/10 | 5535 days | 0% |
| Lorena | 9/10 | 5538 days | 1% |
| Ross & Catherine Litherland | 2/10 | 5551 days | 0% |
| asselman | 4/10 | 5585 days | 0% |
| Decuq | 5/10 | 5611 days | 0% |
| paulandcathy | 5/10 | 5655 days | 0% |
| Kelly | 5/10 | 5755 days | 0% |
| OliverG1 | 8/10 | 5832 days | 0% |
| JoR | 4/10 | 5832 days | 0% |
| Vivien Williams | 1/10 | 5862 days | 0% |
| MetteK | 8/10 | 5878 days | 0% |
| Lucas | 6/10 | 5887 days | 0% |
| Frank | 7/10 | 5887 days | 0% |
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
-0.60% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 60 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 32 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 29 | -0.54% |
| 30 | -0.56% |
| 31 | -0.58% |
| 32 | -0.60% |
| 33 | -0.62% |
| 34 | -0.64% |
| 35 | -0.65% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.22% 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.