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
84.35%
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 | 136 days | 100% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 258 days | 96% |
| Hannah | 10/10 | 258 days | 97% |
| Jorian | 6/10 | 289 days | 83% |
| Lou | 10/10 | 318 days | 95% |
| Tal Tal | 10/10 | 349 days | 94% |
| Donna Harbidge | 9/10 | 471 days | 87% |
| Charlie | 9/10 | 502 days | 86% |
| Henry | 9/10 | 533 days | 84% |
| Amy Catley | 6/10 | 594 days | 69% |
| FitzHanss | 10/10 | 655 days | 76% |
| Lieke | 4/10 | 683 days | 48% |
| Ju | 4/10 | 683 days | 48% |
| Alexandra | 9/10 | 714 days | 71% |
| Aiden | 6/10 | 714 days | 62% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 714 days | 71% |
| RR | 9/10 | 745 days | 68% |
| Sophie | 8/10 | 745 days | 68% |
| Amel | 10/10 | 745 days | 69% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 745 days | 68% |
| Evan | 8/10 | 775 days | 65% |
| Marcus | 3/10 | 775 days | 36% |
| Rebecca Woodbridge | 8/10 | 775 days | 65% |
| Eoin from Ireland | 10/10 | 806 days | 64% |
| Hannah and Matthew | 7/10 | 867 days | 54% |
| Justin | 10/10 | 1079 days | 37% |
| Wayne | 10/10 | 1171 days | 30% |
| Karthik | 10/10 | 1354 days | 18% |
| Thomas neil | 9/10 | 1385 days | 16% |
| Ange | 10/10 | 1444 days | 13% |
| Rach | 8/10 | 1505 days | 11% |
| Grace | 10/10 | 1505 days | 11% |
| JS | 8/10 | 1566 days | 9% |
| Jed Barnett | 10/10 | 1779 days | 5% |
| Clauds | 9/10 | 1779 days | 5% |
| Amanda | 8/10 | 1810 days | 5% |
| Fran | 9/10 | 1841 days | 5% |
| Sheri | 10/10 | 1871 days | 5% |
| Linda QLD | 9/10 | 2024 days | 4% |
| Lisanne | 7/10 | 2085 days | 4% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2116 days | 4% |
| John | 3/10 | 2116 days | 2% |
| Michi | 9/10 | 2116 days | 4% |
| Jacqui | 8/10 | 2175 days | 4% |
| Inna | 10/10 | 2175 days | 4% |
| Tac | 9/10 | 2175 days | 4% |
| Anwang | 7/10 | 2206 days | 4% |
| Juraj | 7/10 | 2206 days | 4% |
| Kelsie | 9/10 | 2236 days | 4% |
| Nifty | 8/10 | 2236 days | 4% |
| Violet Murphy | 5/10 | 2267 days | 3% |
| Philip Page | 7/10 | 2267 days | 4% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2267 days | 4% |
| Adva Cohen | 1/10 | 2297 days | 2% |
| Rachel | 8/10 | 2297 days | 4% |
| Holly Bartholomew | 7/10 | 2297 days | 4% |
| Cassie | 8/10 | 2297 days | 4% |
| Andres | 10/10 | 2328 days | 4% |
| Abu Samah Harun | 10/10 | 2359 days | 4% |
| Bex & Jake | 9/10 | 2420 days | 4% |
| Nathaniel Bond | 9/10 | 2479 days | 3% |
| Nicky Edwards | 9/10 | 2494 days | 4% |
| Hanneke van Dijk | 6/10 | 2514 days | 2% |
| Rogier van de Wiel | 8/10 | 2520 days | 3% |
| Helen Bond | 10/10 | 2540 days | 4% |
| Leong Mee Yee | 8/10 | 2542 days | 3% |
| Meijerelske | 9/10 | 2546 days | 3% |
| Laura Meelynn | 8/10 | 2570 days | 3% |
| Joe Trigg | 8/10 | 2612 days | 3% |
| Jenna Neivandt | 10/10 | 2652 days | 3% |
| Jozef Pinkerton | 6/10 | 2652 days | 3% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 2684 days | 3% |
| Chloe Watson | 8/10 | 2717 days | 3% |
| Duncan | 7/10 | 2769 days | 3% |
| Marc Lambert | 5/10 | 2821 days | 2% |
| Renard D | 5/10 | 2849 days | 2% |
| Daniel Andersson | 8/10 | 2873 days | 3% |
| Victoria Strong | 8/10 | 2903 days | 3% |
| David Townsend | 6/10 | 2954 days | 2% |
| Alicia McCormick | 6/10 | 3080 days | 2% |
| W Donovan | 8/10 | 3156 days | 2% |
| Wayne Jeskie | 5/10 | 3167 days | 2% |
| phillip dudman | 7/10 | 3167 days | 2% |
| Sara Dimnik | 7/10 | 3193 days | 2% |
| Sean Stevens | 8/10 | 3212 days | 2% |
| Corina Sima | 8/10 | 3218 days | 2% |
| Perrine Pilate | 8/10 | 3229 days | 2% |
| Helen James | 6/10 | 3241 days | 2% |
| Alex Macdonald | 6/10 | 3271 days | 2% |
| Harriet Bramley | 7/10 | 3396 days | 2% |
| Mitchell Henderson | 6/10 | 3422 days | 2% |
| Amy Steiger | 7/10 | 3424 days | 2% |
| Shelley | 5/10 | 3447 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 6/10 | 3492 days | 1% |
| Alistair Millward | 7/10 | 3573 days | 1% |
| Sam Smith | 5/10 | 3577 days | 1% |
| Adam Wight | 6/10 | 3579 days | 1% |
| Sebastiaan Kemperman | 6/10 | 3591 days | 1% |
| Wilma Senior | 7/10 | 3605 days | 1% |
| Stefanie Feldman | 7/10 | 3624 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Weight | 8/10 | 3628 days | 1% |
| Alexis Leneveu | 10/10 | 3643 days | 1% |
| Viki Ziemba | 9/10 | 3660 days | 1% |
| Bert Snel | 9/10 | 3697 days | 1% |
| Claudia | 10/10 | 3758 days | 1% |
| Ane Didriksen | 6/10 | 3908 days | 0% |
| Iris Anette Berger | 6/10 | 3908 days | 0% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 3911 days | 1% |
| JoMary Smith | 7/10 | 3970 days | 1% |
| catherine welsh | 6/10 | 4001 days | 1% |
| andrewmh | 8/10 | 4032 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 8/10 | 4062 days | 0% |
| Jitka Krejcova | 10/10 | 4293 days | 0% |
| Bertiethebus | 7/10 | 4307 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 9/10 | 4317 days | 0% |
| Peter & Kate Carmichael | 8/10 | 4683 days | 1% |
| Aoife Lillis | 9/10 | 4689 days | 1% |
| G Tulloch | 1/10 | 5001 days | 0% |
| Sally Reeves | 1/10 | 5017 days | 0% |
| Hanggi | 10/10 | 5018 days | 1% |
| Julie | 5/10 | 5020 days | 0% |
| Alex | 7/10 | 5025 days | 1% |
| Eddie Stevens | 5/10 | 5032 days | 0% |
| Claudia Vermeer | 8/10 | 5052 days | 1% |
| Gillian de Vries | 6/10 | 5059 days | 1% |
| dollimyxture | 7/10 | 5128 days | 1% |
| Polil | 5/10 | 5389 days | 0% |
| Marcus Kippner | 8/10 | 5394 days | 1% |
| Barbara & Sven | 5/10 | 5405 days | 0% |
| Rolf X | 6/10 | 5413 days | 1% |
| Schygulla | 8/10 | 5423 days | 1% |
| Sinjc Grude | 8/10 | 5428 days | 1% |
| Lorena | 9/10 | 5431 days | 1% |
| Ross & Catherine Litherland | 2/10 | 5444 days | 0% |
| asselman | 4/10 | 5478 days | 0% |
| Decuq | 5/10 | 5504 days | 0% |
| paulandcathy | 5/10 | 5548 days | 0% |
| Kelly | 5/10 | 5648 days | 0% |
| OliverG1 | 8/10 | 5725 days | 1% |
| JoR | 4/10 | 5725 days | 0% |
| Vivien Williams | 1/10 | 5755 days | 0% |
| MetteK | 8/10 | 5771 days | 1% |
| Lucas | 6/10 | 5780 days | 1% |
| Frank | 7/10 | 5780 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
-2.33% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 42 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 115 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 112 | -2.27% |
| 113 | -2.29% |
| 114 | -2.31% |
| 115 | -2.33% |
| 116 | -2.35% |
| 117 | -2.37% |
| 118 | -2.39% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.47% 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.