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 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
71.09%
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 | 75 days | 78% |
| Cafe | 10/10 | 197 days | 100% |
| Charlotte Parsons | 4/10 | 471 days | 58% |
| Elizabeth | 7/10 | 502 days | 81% |
| Jaye Manso | 6/10 | 502 days | 75% |
| Marg Dale | 8/10 | 533 days | 84% |
| Ming | 3/10 | 563 days | 46% |
| Al | 3/10 | 655 days | 42% |
| Vit Miller | 6/10 | 683 days | 65% |
| Emily | 7/10 | 775 days | 63% |
| Kirsty Speers | 9/10 | 775 days | 67% |
| Emma | 9/10 | 836 days | 61% |
| Hannah and Matthew | 7/10 | 867 days | 54% |
| Linda | 9/10 | 1628 days | 7% |
| COUSTEIX Guy | 5/10 | 1628 days | 6% |
| Bert | 9/10 | 1841 days | 5% |
| William | 10/10 | 1871 days | 5% |
| Cheryle Harkins | 10/10 | 1902 days | 5% |
| Kate Shields | 4/10 | 1902 days | 3% |
| Lausgrott from Germany | 9/10 | 1932 days | 5% |
| Leonardo Cantalice | 8/10 | 1994 days | 5% |
| CC | 10/10 | 2085 days | 5% |
| Pedro | 3/10 | 2116 days | 2% |
| David Hart | 6/10 | 2116 days | 4% |
| Stefan Miedzinski | 4/10 | 2116 days | 3% |
| Anders Knutsson | 5/10 | 2174 days | 3% |
| Johannes Stahl | 2/10 | 2175 days | 2% |
| Elke fuenfstueck | 9/10 | 2206 days | 4% |
| Rainer Schimpf | 8/10 | 2206 days | 4% |
| Jonas R. | 9/10 | 2236 days | 4% |
| James & Kerry | 7/10 | 2236 days | 4% |
| Emma Higgins | 7/10 | 2266 days | 4% |
| Jim Barrell | 7/10 | 2297 days | 4% |
| Kimberly | 9/10 | 2297 days | 4% |
| Pauline Lewis | 8/10 | 2328 days | 4% |
| Stefano Clerici | 7/10 | 2359 days | 4% |
| Laidler family adventures | 10/10 | 2420 days | 4% |
| Bex & Jake | 8/10 | 2420 days | 4% |
| Wanda P | 10/10 | 2450 days | 4% |
| Ben H | 9/10 | 2481 days | 4% |
| Rikke Hessellund, Denmark | 9/10 | 2481 days | 4% |
| Robert Gatford | 7/10 | 2505 days | 3% |
| Helen Bond | 10/10 | 2540 days | 4% |
| Desiree | 10/10 | 2571 days | 4% |
| Ewan Evans | 7/10 | 2573 days | 3% |
| Eddie Howell | 9/10 | 2576 days | 4% |
| Sandra Wilson-Ryke | 8/10 | 2608 days | 3% |
| Nadene Wheatley | 7/10 | 2611 days | 3% |
| Javier Mimbrera | 9/10 | 2661 days | 3% |
| Geoff Steele | 8/10 | 2661 days | 3% |
| Stacey Maynard | 10/10 | 2680 days | 3% |
| Leonie Scholten | 10/10 | 2681 days | 3% |
| Matt Harrison | 8/10 | 2778 days | 3% |
| Jamie McDonald | 8/10 | 2807 days | 3% |
| Tania A | 9/10 | 2840 days | 3% |
| Anna Brzezińska Talaga | 8/10 | 2845 days | 3% |
| Eva Salacroup | 9/10 | 2849 days | 3% |
| Arslan Ahmad | 9/10 | 2856 days | 3% |
| Ernst Mayerhofer | 10/10 | 2962 days | 3% |
| Philipp Jahn | 9/10 | 3005 days | 3% |
| Becky and James | 9/10 | 3006 days | 3% |
| Jeffrey Ross | 10/10 | 3009 days | 3% |
| Frans Van Schie | 9/10 | 3014 days | 3% |
| Tony Waters | 9/10 | 3026 days | 3% |
| Helen | 7/10 | 3057 days | 2% |
| Mikael Torres | 8/10 | 3059 days | 3% |
| Beth Goodrich | 10/10 | 3070 days | 3% |
| Peter Barker | 8/10 | 3189 days | 2% |
| Sharon | 1/10 | 3192 days | 1% |
| Corina Sima | 9/10 | 3209 days | 2% |
| Staffan Johansson | 10/10 | 3222 days | 2% |
| Sven Hasselberger | 7/10 | 3252 days | 2% |
| Patrick Austin | 7/10 | 3271 days | 2% |
| Michael | 6/10 | 3336 days | 2% |
| Emily C | 9/10 | 3528 days | 2% |
| Mathieu Flechelle | 8/10 | 3635 days | 1% |
| Maren | 10/10 | 3670 days | 1% |
| Christopher Lambert-Züberlein | 7/10 | 3677 days | 1% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 3820 days | 1% |
| Pete | 9/10 | 3881 days | 1% |
| Henry Thiel | 8/10 | 3982 days | 1% |
| Philipp Haass | 5/10 | 4001 days | 1% |
| Fiona Bygrave | 6/10 | 4001 days | 1% |
| Héléna Degres | 9/10 | 4032 days | 1% |
| Bertiethebus | 8/10 | 4276 days | 0% |
| ramy | 9/10 | 4276 days | 0% |
| Phil & Laura | 8/10 | 4335 days | 0% |
| Philip Gibbons | 8/10 | 4366 days | 0% |
| Paul Lawrence | 8/10 | 4395 days | 1% |
| Cennart ud Brock | 8/10 | 4396 days | 1% |
| lindamoore | 9/10 | 4397 days | 1% |
| Andrew K | 9/10 | 4397 days | 1% |
| Jenben | 8/10 | 4427 days | 1% |
| Roshnie | 9/10 | 4427 days | 1% |
| Romla | 8/10 | 4679 days | 1% |
| Ronald Veldman | 8/10 | 4679 days | 1% |
| Dirk & Marlene | 8/10 | 4684 days | 1% |
| Andreas Kofod-Hansen | 9/10 | 4686 days | 1% |
| Christina | 7/10 | 4687 days | 1% |
| Ellen Jacobs | 9/10 | 4699 days | 1% |
| Tim Clark | 9/10 | 4700 days | 1% |
| polzeath | 6/10 | 4701 days | 1% |
| Hans Bos | 9/10 | 4764 days | 1% |
| Helen & Laurence | 8/10 | 4770 days | 1% |
| Willem & Lilian | 6/10 | 4772 days | 1% |
| bdel1963 | 9/10 | 4977 days | 1% |
| English_Campers | 9/10 | 5007 days | 1% |
| Jon_and_Family | 8/10 | 5007 days | 1% |
| Lindsey Clough | 4/10 | 5016 days | 1% |
| female40 | 5/10 | 5023 days | 1% |
| Michael Howat | 8/10 | 5028 days | 1% |
| Haan Begerian | 8/10 | 5052 days | 1% |
| Rob | 8/10 | 5053 days | 1% |
| Seifert | 10/10 | 5058 days | 1% |
| Hans De Bruin | 8/10 | 5066 days | 1% |
| Charli Skinner | 10/10 | 5333 days | 1% |
| Remro | 9/10 | 5391 days | 1% |
| Mark | 7/10 | 5411 days | 1% |
| Alzbeta Czech | 9/10 | 5417 days | 1% |
| Irene Turley | 6/10 | 5426 days | 1% |
| Ines Diana | 9/10 | 5430 days | 1% |
| Pizzanelli | 10/10 | 5430 days | 1% |
| Conor Coyle | 8/10 | 5448 days | 1% |
| deanlaw | 9/10 | 5476 days | 1% |
| usigmund | 8/10 | 5482 days | 1% |
| pthreadgood | 6/10 | 5491 days | 1% |
| Volker Jåkel | 5/10 | 5500 days | 1% |
| clairet | 7/10 | 5602 days | 1% |
| Jennifer Owen | 10/10 | 5615 days | 1% |
| KatieR | 9/10 | 5735 days | 1% |
| Steve Harper | 6/10 | 5744 days | 1% |
| SHVellinga | 8/10 | 5756 days | 1% |
| EleanorL | 7/10 | 5770 days | 1% |
| PellucoFrance | 8/10 | 5770 days | 1% |
| MartinG | 9/10 | 5770 days | 1% |
| VickiS | 9/10 | 5770 days | 1% |
| KeziaB | 9/10 | 5770 days | 1% |
| Kay | 8/10 | 5786 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
-1.34% 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 66 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 63 | -1.28% |
| 64 | -1.30% |
| 65 | -1.32% |
| 66 | -1.34% |
| 67 | -1.36% |
| 68 | -1.38% |
| 69 | -1.40% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
7.14% 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
77%
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.