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 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
91 Valid Reviews
The Waitangi Holiday Park experience has a total of 92 reviews. There are 91 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 91 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 18 |
|
20% |
| 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% |
81.76% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Waitangi Holiday Park valid reviews is 81.76% and is based on 91 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 91 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
83.70%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harley Berggren | 10/10 | 151 days | 100% |
| John Wood | 8/10 | 212 days | 97% |
| Allison Miles | 10/10 | 212 days | 99% |
| ILEA TANT | 8/10 | 240 days | 96% |
| laurent bloch | 10/10 | 363 days | 94% |
| Carmen | 8/10 | 424 days | 89% |
| Rich | 8/10 | 455 days | 88% |
| Debbie | 8/10 | 577 days | 80% |
| Ale | 1/10 | 667 days | 31% |
| Diana | 9/10 | 728 days | 70% |
| Mark | 9/10 | 942 days | 50% |
| Henk | 5/10 | 1033 days | 31% |
| iona.catley@hotmail.co.uk | 9/10 | 1308 days | 20% |
| Jo | 4/10 | 1367 days | 11% |
| Stefanie | 6/10 | 1520 days | 9% |
| Paulo | 9/10 | 1551 days | 9% |
| Jax | 5/10 | 1581 days | 6% |
| Marg Dale | 8/10 | 1916 days | 5% |
| The wandering kiwi | 9/10 | 2007 days | 5% |
| Crystal | 8/10 | 2189 days | 4% |
| sara hollander | 9/10 | 2431 days | 4% |
| Sarah | 9/10 | 2431 days | 4% |
| Just a guy | 10/10 | 2432 days | 4% |
| Miles | 10/10 | 2463 days | 4% |
| eskimo | 10/10 | 2616 days | 3% |
| Maëlys | 10/10 | 2708 days | 3% |
| Kaarina | 2/10 | 2797 days | 1% |
| Lena | 8/10 | 2828 days | 3% |
| Rosamund Gilligan | 8/10 | 2888 days | 3% |
| Nielsa | 8/10 | 2889 days | 3% |
| Nigel Jarvis | 10/10 | 2920 days | 3% |
| Edward Lowe | 9/10 | 2920 days | 3% |
| shaun mcgillicuddy | 8/10 | 2950 days | 3% |
| Stefano Clerici | 9/10 | 3011 days | 3% |
| Helene | 6/10 | 3103 days | 2% |
| Andrew Rex | 9/10 | 3139 days | 2% |
| Eline Stoutjesdijk | 7/10 | 3268 days | 2% |
| Geoff Steele | 10/10 | 3314 days | 2% |
| Fifi and Jay | 8/10 | 3412 days | 2% |
| Anja Röhrich | 9/10 | 3446 days | 2% |
| Stephen Mcbride | 3/10 | 3477 days | 1% |
| Anne Loehner | 9/10 | 3502 days | 2% |
| Breanna Alexander | 8/10 | 3547 days | 2% |
| Matthew Hassam | 8/10 | 3557 days | 2% |
| Stacey Arnold | 9/10 | 3588 days | 1% |
| Victor Miro | 7/10 | 3618 days | 1% |
| Shelly Stanchuk | 10/10 | 3618 days | 1% |
| Cindy Lewis | 10/10 | 3649 days | 1% |
| Jeffrey Ross | 10/10 | 3677 days | 1% |
| Tim Holmes | 10/10 | 3721 days | 1% |
| David Mason | 10/10 | 3770 days | 1% |
| Chantelle Hiley | 9/10 | 3786 days | 1% |
| Lyn Pobke | 9/10 | 3800 days | 1% |
| Philip Cook | 9/10 | 3809 days | 1% |
| Goldfinger | 10/10 | 3832 days | 1% |
| Achim Stegmann | 10/10 | 3838 days | 1% |
| Graeme O'Keeffe | 9/10 | 3850 days | 1% |
| Ann-Catherine Deblon | 8/10 | 3860 days | 1% |
| Staffan Johansson | 8/10 | 3875 days | 1% |
| Antonio BENITEZ | 7/10 | 3923 days | 1% |
| Peter Marshall | 9/10 | 3941 days | 1% |
| Ana Luisa Santo | 9/10 | 4034 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Can | 9/10 | 4106 days | 0% |
| J V Henare | 9/10 | 4135 days | 0% |
| andrew simpson | 9/10 | 4196 days | 0% |
| Oliver Pester | 10/10 | 4229 days | 0% |
| Florian Kleemann | 8/10 | 4241 days | 0% |
| Laurie | 9/10 | 4288 days | 0% |
| Jim Sidroy | 9/10 | 4290 days | 0% |
| Thomas Marte | 10/10 | 4349 days | 0% |
| Heather Kingston | 8/10 | 4349 days | 0% |
| Shelley Storey | 9/10 | 4654 days | 1% |
| Jade Fleming | 8/10 | 4715 days | 1% |
| Lindsay Berquist | 7/10 | 4899 days | 1% |
| Hanneke P | 7/10 | 5019 days | 1% |
| Alexander Klein | 8/10 | 5054 days | 1% |
| Reinhard Stahl | 7/10 | 5055 days | 1% |
| Reinhard Stahl | 7/10 | 5055 days | 1% |
| Jenben | 9/10 | 5111 days | 1% |
| Liz Stokes | 9/10 | 5341 days | 1% |
| Andy Lever | 6/10 | 5431 days | 1% |
| David | 7/10 | 5709 days | 1% |
| GrantW | 5/10 | 5781 days | 1% |
| Mike Robinson | 8/10 | 6049 days | 1% |
| Helmet Paula | 8/10 | 6069 days | 1% |
| Robert Scharrenborg | 8/10 | 6083 days | 1% |
| Vanessa | 8/10 | 6157 days | 1% |
| richardh | 7/10 | 6271 days | 1% |
| Martien van Brakel | 7/10 | 6390 days | 1% |
| BrendaM | 8/10 | 6407 days | 1% |
| CarolF | 8/10 | 6425 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 Waitangi Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-2.15% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 68 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 133 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 130 | -2.10% |
| 131 | -2.12% |
| 132 | -2.13% |
| 133 | -2.15% |
| 134 | -2.16% |
| 135 | -2.18% |
| 136 | -2.20% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.59% 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.