Hey, 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 Waitangi 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.
Waitangi Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
90 Valid Reviews
The Waitangi Holiday Park experience has a total of 91 reviews. There are 90 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 1 invalid review 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 90 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 17 |
|
19% |
| 9/10 | 27 |
|
30% |
| 8/10 | 26 |
|
29% |
| 7/10 | 10 |
|
11% |
| 6/10 | 3 |
|
3% |
| 5/10 | 3 |
|
3% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
81.56% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Waitangi Holiday Park valid reviews is 81.56% and is based on 90 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
15 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 90 valid reviews, the experience has 15 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 15 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 9/10 | 2 |
|
13% |
| 8/10 | 7 |
|
47% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
33% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
7% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
76.67% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Waitangi Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 76.67% and is based on 15 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
81.32%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| John Wood | 8/10 | 31 days | 98% |
| Allison Miles | 10/10 | 31 days | 100% |
| ILEA TANT | 8/10 | 59 days | 98% |
| laurent bloch | 10/10 | 182 days | 98% |
| Carmen | 8/10 | 243 days | 95% |
| Rich | 8/10 | 274 days | 94% |
| Debbie | 8/10 | 396 days | 89% |
| Ale | 1/10 | 486 days | 35% |
| Diana | 9/10 | 547 days | 82% |
| Mark | 9/10 | 761 days | 66% |
| Henk | 5/10 | 852 days | 44% |
| iona.catley@hotmail.co.uk | 9/10 | 1127 days | 32% |
| Jo | 4/10 | 1186 days | 18% |
| Stefanie | 6/10 | 1339 days | 16% |
| Paulo | 9/10 | 1370 days | 16% |
| Jax | 5/10 | 1400 days | 11% |
| Marg Dale | 8/10 | 1735 days | 5% |
| The wandering kiwi | 9/10 | 1826 days | 5% |
| Crystal | 8/10 | 2008 days | 4% |
| sara hollander | 9/10 | 2250 days | 4% |
| Sarah | 9/10 | 2250 days | 4% |
| Just a guy | 10/10 | 2251 days | 4% |
| Miles | 10/10 | 2282 days | 4% |
| eskimo | 10/10 | 2435 days | 3% |
| Maëlys | 10/10 | 2527 days | 3% |
| Kaarina | 2/10 | 2616 days | 1% |
| Lena | 8/10 | 2647 days | 3% |
| Rosamund Gilligan | 8/10 | 2707 days | 3% |
| Nielsa | 8/10 | 2708 days | 3% |
| Nigel Jarvis | 10/10 | 2739 days | 3% |
| Edward Lowe | 9/10 | 2739 days | 3% |
| shaun mcgillicuddy | 8/10 | 2769 days | 3% |
| Stefano Clerici | 9/10 | 2830 days | 3% |
| Helene | 6/10 | 2922 days | 2% |
| Andrew Rex | 9/10 | 2958 days | 2% |
| Eline Stoutjesdijk | 7/10 | 3087 days | 2% |
| Geoff Steele | 10/10 | 3133 days | 2% |
| Fifi and Jay | 8/10 | 3231 days | 2% |
| Anja Röhrich | 9/10 | 3265 days | 2% |
| Stephen Mcbride | 3/10 | 3296 days | 1% |
| Anne Loehner | 9/10 | 3321 days | 2% |
| Breanna Alexander | 8/10 | 3366 days | 2% |
| Matthew Hassam | 8/10 | 3376 days | 2% |
| Stacey Arnold | 9/10 | 3407 days | 1% |
| Victor Miro | 7/10 | 3437 days | 1% |
| Shelly Stanchuk | 10/10 | 3437 days | 1% |
| Cindy Lewis | 10/10 | 3468 days | 1% |
| Jeffrey Ross | 10/10 | 3496 days | 1% |
| Tim Holmes | 10/10 | 3540 days | 1% |
| David Mason | 10/10 | 3589 days | 1% |
| Chantelle Hiley | 9/10 | 3605 days | 1% |
| Lyn Pobke | 9/10 | 3619 days | 1% |
| Philip Cook | 9/10 | 3628 days | 1% |
| Goldfinger | 10/10 | 3651 days | 1% |
| Achim Stegmann | 10/10 | 3657 days | 1% |
| Graeme O'Keeffe | 9/10 | 3669 days | 1% |
| Ann-Catherine Deblon | 8/10 | 3679 days | 1% |
| Staffan Johansson | 8/10 | 3694 days | 1% |
| Antonio BENITEZ | 7/10 | 3742 days | 1% |
| Peter Marshall | 9/10 | 3760 days | 1% |
| Ana Luisa Santo | 9/10 | 3853 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Can | 9/10 | 3925 days | 0% |
| J V Henare | 9/10 | 3954 days | 0% |
| andrew simpson | 9/10 | 4015 days | 0% |
| Oliver Pester | 10/10 | 4048 days | 0% |
| Florian Kleemann | 8/10 | 4060 days | 0% |
| Laurie | 9/10 | 4107 days | 0% |
| Jim Sidroy | 9/10 | 4109 days | 0% |
| Thomas Marte | 10/10 | 4168 days | 0% |
| Heather Kingston | 8/10 | 4168 days | 0% |
| Shelley Storey | 9/10 | 4473 days | 1% |
| Jade Fleming | 8/10 | 4534 days | 1% |
| Lindsay Berquist | 7/10 | 4718 days | 1% |
| Hanneke P | 7/10 | 4838 days | 1% |
| Alexander Klein | 8/10 | 4873 days | 0% |
| Reinhard Stahl | 7/10 | 4874 days | 0% |
| Reinhard Stahl | 7/10 | 4874 days | 0% |
| Jenben | 9/10 | 4930 days | 1% |
| Liz Stokes | 9/10 | 5160 days | 0% |
| Andy Lever | 6/10 | 5250 days | 0% |
| David | 7/10 | 5528 days | 0% |
| GrantW | 5/10 | 5600 days | 0% |
| Mike Robinson | 8/10 | 5868 days | 0% |
| Helmet Paula | 8/10 | 5888 days | 0% |
| Robert Scharrenborg | 8/10 | 5902 days | 0% |
| Vanessa | 8/10 | 5976 days | 0% |
| richardh | 7/10 | 6090 days | 0% |
| Martien van Brakel | 7/10 | 6209 days | 0% |
| BrendaM | 8/10 | 6226 days | 0% |
| CarolF | 8/10 | 6244 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 Waitangi Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.34% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 60 days. However the Waitangi 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 Waitangi Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 18 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 15 | -0.28% |
| 16 | -0.30% |
| 17 | -0.32% |
| 18 | -0.34% |
| 19 | -0.35% |
| 20 | -0.37% |
| 21 | -0.39% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.74% 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.