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 Cosy Cottage Thermal 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.
Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
138 Valid Reviews
The Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday Park experience has a total of 143 reviews. There are 138 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 5 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 138 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 19 |
|
14% |
| 9/10 | 41 |
|
30% |
| 8/10 | 35 |
|
25% |
| 7/10 | 18 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 10 |
|
7% |
| 5/10 | 6 |
|
4% |
| 4/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
78.48% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday Park valid reviews is 78.48% and is based on 138 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
46 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 138 valid reviews, the experience has 46 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 46 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 4 |
|
9% |
| 9/10 | 14 |
|
30% |
| 8/10 | 15 |
|
33% |
| 7/10 | 6 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 4 |
|
9% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
4% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
79.57% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 79.57% and is based on 46 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
71.66%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diana | 5/10 | 439 days | 83% |
| Cafe | 10/10 | 560 days | 100% |
| Charlotte Parsons | 4/10 | 834 days | 48% |
| Elizabeth | 7/10 | 865 days | 65% |
| Jaye Manso | 6/10 | 865 days | 60% |
| Marg Dale | 8/10 | 896 days | 65% |
| Ming | 3/10 | 926 days | 34% |
| Al | 3/10 | 1019 days | 28% |
| Vit Miller | 6/10 | 1047 days | 41% |
| Emily | 7/10 | 1139 days | 36% |
| Kirsty Speers | 9/10 | 1139 days | 38% |
| Emma | 9/10 | 1199 days | 33% |
| Hannah and Matthew | 7/10 | 1230 days | 29% |
| Linda | 9/10 | 1991 days | 6% |
| COUSTEIX Guy | 5/10 | 1991 days | 4% |
| Bert | 9/10 | 2205 days | 5% |
| William | 10/10 | 2235 days | 5% |
| Cheryle Harkins | 10/10 | 2266 days | 5% |
| Kate Shields | 4/10 | 2266 days | 3% |
| Lausgrott from Germany | 9/10 | 2295 days | 5% |
| Leonardo Cantalice | 8/10 | 2357 days | 5% |
| CC | 10/10 | 2449 days | 5% |
| Pedro | 3/10 | 2480 days | 2% |
| David Hart | 6/10 | 2480 days | 4% |
| Stefan Miedzinski | 4/10 | 2480 days | 3% |
| Anders Knutsson | 5/10 | 2538 days | 3% |
| Johannes Stahl | 2/10 | 2539 days | 2% |
| Elke fuenfstueck | 9/10 | 2570 days | 4% |
| Rainer Schimpf | 8/10 | 2570 days | 4% |
| Jonas R. | 9/10 | 2600 days | 4% |
| James & Kerry | 7/10 | 2600 days | 4% |
| Emma Higgins | 7/10 | 2630 days | 4% |
| Jim Barrell | 7/10 | 2660 days | 4% |
| Kimberly | 9/10 | 2660 days | 4% |
| Pauline Lewis | 8/10 | 2691 days | 4% |
| Stefano Clerici | 7/10 | 2722 days | 4% |
| Laidler family adventures | 10/10 | 2783 days | 4% |
| Bex & Jake | 8/10 | 2783 days | 4% |
| Wanda P | 10/10 | 2814 days | 4% |
| Ben H | 9/10 | 2845 days | 4% |
| Rikke Hessellund, Denmark | 9/10 | 2845 days | 4% |
| Robert Gatford | 7/10 | 2869 days | 3% |
| Helen Bond | 10/10 | 2904 days | 3% |
| Desiree | 10/10 | 2935 days | 3% |
| Ewan Evans | 7/10 | 2937 days | 3% |
| Eddie Howell | 9/10 | 2940 days | 3% |
| Sandra Wilson-Ryke | 8/10 | 2972 days | 3% |
| Nadene Wheatley | 7/10 | 2975 days | 3% |
| Javier Mimbrera | 9/10 | 3025 days | 3% |
| Geoff Steele | 8/10 | 3025 days | 3% |
| Stacey Maynard | 10/10 | 3043 days | 3% |
| Leonie Scholten | 10/10 | 3044 days | 3% |
| Matt Harrison | 8/10 | 3141 days | 3% |
| Jamie McDonald | 8/10 | 3170 days | 3% |
| Tania A | 9/10 | 3204 days | 3% |
| Anna Brzezińska Talaga | 8/10 | 3209 days | 3% |
| Eva Salacroup | 9/10 | 3213 days | 2% |
| Arslan Ahmad | 9/10 | 3220 days | 3% |
| Ernst Mayerhofer | 10/10 | 3326 days | 2% |
| Philipp Jahn | 9/10 | 3368 days | 2% |
| Becky and James | 9/10 | 3369 days | 2% |
| Jeffrey Ross | 10/10 | 3372 days | 2% |
| Frans Van Schie | 9/10 | 3377 days | 2% |
| Tony Waters | 9/10 | 3390 days | 2% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 3421 days | 2% |
| Mikael Torres | 8/10 | 3422 days | 2% |
| Beth Goodrich | 10/10 | 3433 days | 2% |
| Peter Barker | 8/10 | 3553 days | 2% |
| Sharon | 1/10 | 3556 days | 1% |
| Corina Sima | 9/10 | 3573 days | 2% |
| Staffan Johansson | 10/10 | 3586 days | 2% |
| Sven Hasselberger | 7/10 | 3616 days | 2% |
| Patrick Austin | 7/10 | 3635 days | 2% |
| Michael | 6/10 | 3700 days | 1% |
| Emily C | 9/10 | 3891 days | 1% |
| Mathieu Flechelle | 8/10 | 3999 days | 1% |
| Maren | 10/10 | 4034 days | 1% |
| Christopher Lambert-Züberlein | 7/10 | 4041 days | 1% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 4183 days | 0% |
| Pete | 9/10 | 4244 days | 0% |
| Henry Thiel | 8/10 | 4346 days | 0% |
| Philipp Haass | 5/10 | 4365 days | 0% |
| Fiona Bygrave | 6/10 | 4365 days | 0% |
| Héléna Degres | 9/10 | 4396 days | 1% |
| Bertiethebus | 8/10 | 4640 days | 1% |
| ramy | 9/10 | 4640 days | 1% |
| Phil & Laura | 8/10 | 4699 days | 1% |
| Philip Gibbons | 8/10 | 4730 days | 1% |
| Paul Lawrence | 8/10 | 4759 days | 1% |
| Cennart ud Brock | 8/10 | 4760 days | 1% |
| lindamoore | 9/10 | 4761 days | 1% |
| Andrew K | 9/10 | 4761 days | 1% |
| Jenben | 8/10 | 4791 days | 1% |
| Roshnie | 9/10 | 4791 days | 1% |
| Romla | 8/10 | 5043 days | 1% |
| Ronald Veldman | 8/10 | 5043 days | 1% |
| Dirk & Marlene | 8/10 | 5048 days | 1% |
| Andreas Kofod-Hansen | 9/10 | 5050 days | 1% |
| Christina | 7/10 | 5051 days | 1% |
| Ellen Jacobs | 9/10 | 5063 days | 1% |
| Tim Clark | 9/10 | 5064 days | 1% |
| polzeath | 6/10 | 5065 days | 1% |
| Hans Bos | 9/10 | 5128 days | 1% |
| Helen & Laurence | 8/10 | 5134 days | 1% |
| Willem & Lilian | 6/10 | 5136 days | 1% |
| bdel1963 | 9/10 | 5340 days | 1% |
| English_Campers | 9/10 | 5371 days | 1% |
| Jon_and_Family | 8/10 | 5371 days | 1% |
| Lindsey Clough | 4/10 | 5380 days | 1% |
| female40 | 5/10 | 5387 days | 1% |
| Michael Howat | 8/10 | 5392 days | 1% |
| Haan Begerian | 8/10 | 5416 days | 1% |
| Rob | 8/10 | 5417 days | 1% |
| Seifert | 10/10 | 5422 days | 1% |
| Hans De Bruin | 8/10 | 5430 days | 1% |
| Charli Skinner | 10/10 | 5696 days | 1% |
| Remro | 9/10 | 5755 days | 1% |
| Mark | 7/10 | 5775 days | 1% |
| Alzbeta Czech | 9/10 | 5781 days | 1% |
| Irene Turley | 6/10 | 5790 days | 1% |
| Ines Diana | 9/10 | 5794 days | 1% |
| Pizzanelli | 10/10 | 5794 days | 1% |
| Conor Coyle | 8/10 | 5812 days | 1% |
| deanlaw | 9/10 | 5840 days | 1% |
| usigmund | 8/10 | 5846 days | 1% |
| pthreadgood | 6/10 | 5855 days | 1% |
| Volker Jåkel | 5/10 | 5864 days | 1% |
| clairet | 7/10 | 5965 days | 1% |
| Jennifer Owen | 10/10 | 5978 days | 1% |
| KatieR | 9/10 | 6099 days | 1% |
| Steve Harper | 6/10 | 6108 days | 1% |
| SHVellinga | 8/10 | 6120 days | 1% |
| EleanorL | 7/10 | 6134 days | 1% |
| PellucoFrance | 8/10 | 6134 days | 1% |
| MartinG | 9/10 | 6134 days | 1% |
| VickiS | 9/10 | 6134 days | 1% |
| KeziaB | 9/10 | 6134 days | 1% |
| Kay | 8/10 | 6150 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 Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-4.06% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 42 days. However the Cosy Cottage Thermal 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 Cosy Cottage Thermal Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -4.00% |
| 198 | -4.02% |
| 199 | -4.04% |
| 200 | -4.06% |
| 201 | -4.08% |
| 202 | -4.10% |
| 203 | -4.12% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
8.45% 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
76%
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.