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 Picton Tasman Holiday Parks.
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.
Picton Tasman Holiday Parks
Valid Reviews
140 Valid Reviews
The Picton Tasman Holiday Parks experience has a total of 141 reviews. There are 140 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 140 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 33 |
|
24% |
| 9/10 | 41 |
|
29% |
| 8/10 | 45 |
|
32% |
| 7/10 | 14 |
|
10% |
| 6/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
84.79% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Picton Tasman Holiday Parks valid reviews is 84.79% and is based on 140 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
101 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 140 valid reviews, the experience has 101 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 101 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 23 |
|
23% |
| 9/10 | 30 |
|
30% |
| 8/10 | 33 |
|
33% |
| 7/10 | 12 |
|
12% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
85.05% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Picton Tasman Holiday Parks face-to-face reviews is 85.05% and is based on 101 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
88.91%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Andrew Lester | 8/10 | 162 days | 100% |
| Rich | 9/10 | 407 days | 93% |
| Jason C | 10/10 | 468 days | 91% |
| Donna | 10/10 | 468 days | 91% |
| Aoife | 8/10 | 650 days | 77% |
| Laura | 9/10 | 1230 days | 25% |
| Ferg | 10/10 | 1230 days | 26% |
| Inge | 8/10 | 1289 days | 21% |
| Cindi Wight | 9/10 | 1350 days | 18% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 1381 days | 16% |
| Alexis | 10/10 | 2233 days | 4% |
| Cody | 10/10 | 2325 days | 4% |
| Mike Smith | 7/10 | 2385 days | 3% |
| Beth Carlton | 1/10 | 2446 days | 1% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 2719 days | 3% |
| Emma | 9/10 | 2750 days | 3% |
| Demi Thompson | 6/10 | 2811 days | 2% |
| Brett See | 9/10 | 2842 days | 3% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2842 days | 3% |
| Urs Bruderer | 10/10 | 3530 days | 1% |
| Leslie Lindeman | 10/10 | 3742 days | 1% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3745 days | 1% |
| Phillippa McLernon | 8/10 | 3803 days | 1% |
| Tine Fook | 6/10 | 3839 days | 0% |
| Jan Towers | 8/10 | 4484 days | 1% |
| Brita Topp | 8/10 | 4486 days | 1% |
| Mike Fricker | 8/10 | 4486 days | 1% |
| Mark Towers | 8/10 | 4517 days | 1% |
| Rikke Petersen | 9/10 | 4535 days | 1% |
| Ted Cole | 8/10 | 4545 days | 1% |
| Nigel | 8/10 | 4552 days | 1% |
| catherine welsh | 8/10 | 4576 days | 1% |
| Nigel & Annie Dale | 8/10 | 4637 days | 1% |
| ozelmer | 6/10 | 4698 days | 0% |
| AusCampa | 9/10 | 4821 days | 1% |
| Mark Wiggington | 7/10 | 4845 days | 0% |
| Ken Milligan | 8/10 | 4869 days | 1% |
| Gale Willcocks | 10/10 | 4875 days | 1% |
| Ken Richardson | 8/10 | 4875 days | 1% |
| Heather Macdonald | 9/10 | 4910 days | 1% |
| Nadine | 9/10 | 4954 days | 1% |
| Robert Staeller | 8/10 | 4957 days | 1% |
| David and Sally Wallis | 9/10 | 4963 days | 1% |
| Jackie and Brian | 8/10 | 4964 days | 1% |
| Peter | 10/10 | 4965 days | 1% |
| Julia Ramseier | 10/10 | 4984 days | 1% |
| Lisa Blake | 8/10 | 4988 days | 1% |
| Ton Franke | 8/10 | 4988 days | 1% |
| Megan Child | 9/10 | 4989 days | 1% |
| Jonathan Tuthill | 10/10 | 5232 days | 1% |
| Carly Braddock | 10/10 | 5236 days | 1% |
| Def Fem | 8/10 | 5242 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5247 days | 0% |
| Michael Jefferies | 9/10 | 5250 days | 1% |
| Mark Bogton | 9/10 | 5256 days | 1% |
| Dominik Langenegger | 10/10 | 5258 days | 1% |
| Moehl | 9/10 | 5259 days | 1% |
| D Collier | 10/10 | 5260 days | 1% |
| Uwe Henze | 8/10 | 5261 days | 1% |
| Ute Rogawski | 7/10 | 5268 days | 0% |
| Nikita Sue | 7/10 | 5269 days | 0% |
| Heewin Otten | 10/10 | 5269 days | 1% |
| D R Valentine | 10/10 | 5270 days | 1% |
| Andreas Kristiansen | 9/10 | 5270 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5271 days | 1% |
| John Reynolds | 10/10 | 5271 days | 1% |
| Katie K | 10/10 | 5285 days | 1% |
| ZephyrTL | 8/10 | 5307 days | 1% |
| Peter, Noelle & Susanne | 10/10 | 5341 days | 1% |
| John & Myra Sloan | 9/10 | 5347 days | 1% |
| Jan & Marian | 10/10 | 5350 days | 1% |
| Andy Lever | 9/10 | 5353 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 8/10 | 5355 days | 1% |
| damaca | 9/10 | 5429 days | 1% |
| Tacksharp | 9/10 | 5491 days | 1% |
| Edward Marhi | 9/10 | 5579 days | 1% |
| Weez18 | 10/10 | 5582 days | 1% |
| de Smedt | 9/10 | 5585 days | 1% |
| Eric Grant | 8/10 | 5587 days | 1% |
| Koen Vanlede | 8/10 | 5599 days | 1% |
| Sue Top | 10/10 | 5600 days | 1% |
| Marty Fey | 5/10 | 5604 days | 0% |
| Gord Carnochan | 9/10 | 5614 days | 1% |
| Pam & Rob Tellwright | 8/10 | 5617 days | 1% |
| Derek Puplett | 9/10 | 5617 days | 1% |
| Callum Sibbald | 8/10 | 5617 days | 1% |
| Gerlach | 8/10 | 5618 days | 1% |
| Agnes McMillan | 10/10 | 5625 days | 1% |
| Jill Dean | 8/10 | 5628 days | 1% |
| Philipp Rau | 8/10 | 5632 days | 1% |
| Eva Stauderova | 10/10 | 5632 days | 1% |
| Annette Mogg | 10/10 | 5637 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 5764 days | 1% |
| Betty le Brech | 8/10 | 5960 days | 1% |
| Ed & Pat Mitchell | 9/10 | 5986 days | 1% |
| Sue Bennett | 7/10 | 5988 days | 0% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5988 days | 1% |
| Liz Pursey | 9/10 | 5998 days | 1% |
| pvo plas | 8/10 | 6000 days | 1% |
| Hoogh | 9/10 | 6003 days | 1% |
| Carina Raeder | 8/10 | 6004 days | 1% |
| John Rylance | 10/10 | 6005 days | 1% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 6005 days | 1% |
| Tonny | 9/10 | 6005 days | 1% |
| Tim | 7/10 | 6006 days | 0% |
| Allan Bond | 7/10 | 6012 days | 0% |
| uleugel | 9/10 | 6015 days | 1% |
| Jeannot Robert | 10/10 | 6016 days | 1% |
| Norbert Hainz | 8/10 | 6019 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 6026 days | 1% |
| T S | 10/10 | 6037 days | 1% |
| eliertv | 9/10 | 6052 days | 1% |
| adamek | 7/10 | 6052 days | 0% |
| frederike | 8/10 | 6053 days | 1% |
| Karin Linder | 9/10 | 6072 days | 1% |
| Bue Verrept | 8/10 | 6075 days | 1% |
| Pia | 2/10 | 6079 days | 0% |
| Gebert | 8/10 | 6079 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 8/10 | 6080 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 9/10 | 6081 days | 1% |
| Kelly | 10/10 | 6223 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6293 days | 1% |
| AndySwitzerland | 8/10 | 6296 days | 1% |
| suet | 7/10 | 6312 days | 0% |
| scottl | 7/10 | 6312 days | 0% |
| neeltjec | 9/10 | 6312 days | 1% |
| Martien van Brakel | 9/10 | 6312 days | 1% |
| BevanLisa | 8/10 | 6329 days | 1% |
| JeremyE | 8/10 | 6330 days | 1% |
| TessaW | 4/10 | 6330 days | 0% |
| LucyT | 10/10 | 6330 days | 1% |
| Florens | 8/10 | 6332 days | 1% |
| Joel | 7/10 | 6332 days | 0% |
| Tiemen | 7/10 | 6332 days | 0% |
| NikkiB1 | 9/10 | 6347 days | 1% |
| BrunoS | 9/10 | 6347 days | 1% |
| JoseB | 9/10 | 6354 days | 1% |
| Debbie | 9/10 | 6354 days | 1% |
| InkenGermany | 9/10 | 6354 days | 1% |
| John | 7/10 | 6361 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 Picton Tasman Holiday Parks experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-1.47% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 125 days. However the Picton Tasman Holiday Parks 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 Picton Tasman Holiday Parks experience has been adjusted for 147 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 144 | -1.44% |
| 145 | -1.45% |
| 146 | -1.46% |
| 147 | -1.47% |
| 148 | -1.48% |
| 149 | -1.49% |
| 150 | -1.50% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.38% 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
89%
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.