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
88.93%
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 | 59 days | 100% |
| Rich | 9/10 | 303 days | 96% |
| Jason C | 10/10 | 365 days | 94% |
| Donna | 10/10 | 365 days | 94% |
| Aoife | 8/10 | 547 days | 83% |
| Laura | 9/10 | 1127 days | 33% |
| Ferg | 10/10 | 1127 days | 33% |
| Inge | 8/10 | 1186 days | 28% |
| Cindi Wight | 9/10 | 1247 days | 24% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 1278 days | 22% |
| Alexis | 10/10 | 2129 days | 4% |
| Cody | 10/10 | 2222 days | 4% |
| Mike Smith | 7/10 | 2282 days | 3% |
| Beth Carlton | 1/10 | 2343 days | 1% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 2616 days | 3% |
| Emma | 9/10 | 2647 days | 3% |
| Demi Thompson | 6/10 | 2708 days | 2% |
| Brett See | 9/10 | 2739 days | 3% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2739 days | 3% |
| Urs Bruderer | 10/10 | 3427 days | 1% |
| Leslie Lindeman | 10/10 | 3638 days | 1% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3641 days | 1% |
| Phillippa McLernon | 8/10 | 3700 days | 1% |
| Tine Fook | 6/10 | 3736 days | 1% |
| Jan Towers | 8/10 | 4381 days | 1% |
| Brita Topp | 8/10 | 4383 days | 1% |
| Mike Fricker | 8/10 | 4383 days | 1% |
| Mark Towers | 8/10 | 4414 days | 1% |
| Rikke Petersen | 9/10 | 4432 days | 1% |
| Ted Cole | 8/10 | 4442 days | 1% |
| Nigel | 8/10 | 4449 days | 1% |
| catherine welsh | 8/10 | 4473 days | 1% |
| Nigel & Annie Dale | 8/10 | 4534 days | 1% |
| ozelmer | 6/10 | 4594 days | 0% |
| AusCampa | 9/10 | 4717 days | 1% |
| Mark Wiggington | 7/10 | 4742 days | 0% |
| Ken Milligan | 8/10 | 4766 days | 1% |
| Gale Willcocks | 10/10 | 4772 days | 1% |
| Ken Richardson | 8/10 | 4772 days | 1% |
| Heather Macdonald | 9/10 | 4807 days | 1% |
| Nadine | 9/10 | 4851 days | 1% |
| Robert Staeller | 8/10 | 4854 days | 1% |
| David and Sally Wallis | 9/10 | 4860 days | 1% |
| Jackie and Brian | 8/10 | 4861 days | 1% |
| Peter | 10/10 | 4862 days | 1% |
| Julia Ramseier | 10/10 | 4881 days | 1% |
| Lisa Blake | 8/10 | 4885 days | 1% |
| Ton Franke | 8/10 | 4885 days | 1% |
| Megan Child | 9/10 | 4886 days | 1% |
| Jonathan Tuthill | 10/10 | 5129 days | 1% |
| Carly Braddock | 10/10 | 5133 days | 1% |
| Def Fem | 8/10 | 5139 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5144 days | 0% |
| Michael Jefferies | 9/10 | 5147 days | 1% |
| Mark Bogton | 9/10 | 5153 days | 1% |
| Dominik Langenegger | 10/10 | 5155 days | 1% |
| Moehl | 9/10 | 5156 days | 1% |
| D Collier | 10/10 | 5157 days | 1% |
| Uwe Henze | 8/10 | 5158 days | 1% |
| Ute Rogawski | 7/10 | 5165 days | 0% |
| Nikita Sue | 7/10 | 5166 days | 0% |
| Heewin Otten | 10/10 | 5166 days | 1% |
| D R Valentine | 10/10 | 5167 days | 1% |
| Andreas Kristiansen | 9/10 | 5167 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5168 days | 1% |
| John Reynolds | 10/10 | 5168 days | 1% |
| Katie K | 10/10 | 5182 days | 1% |
| ZephyrTL | 8/10 | 5204 days | 1% |
| Peter, Noelle & Susanne | 10/10 | 5238 days | 1% |
| John & Myra Sloan | 9/10 | 5244 days | 1% |
| Jan & Marian | 10/10 | 5247 days | 1% |
| Andy Lever | 9/10 | 5250 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 8/10 | 5252 days | 1% |
| damaca | 9/10 | 5325 days | 1% |
| Tacksharp | 9/10 | 5387 days | 1% |
| Edward Marhi | 9/10 | 5475 days | 1% |
| Weez18 | 10/10 | 5479 days | 1% |
| de Smedt | 9/10 | 5482 days | 1% |
| Eric Grant | 8/10 | 5484 days | 1% |
| Koen Vanlede | 8/10 | 5496 days | 1% |
| Sue Top | 10/10 | 5497 days | 1% |
| Marty Fey | 5/10 | 5501 days | 0% |
| Gord Carnochan | 9/10 | 5511 days | 1% |
| Pam & Rob Tellwright | 8/10 | 5514 days | 1% |
| Derek Puplett | 9/10 | 5514 days | 1% |
| Callum Sibbald | 8/10 | 5514 days | 1% |
| Gerlach | 8/10 | 5515 days | 1% |
| Agnes McMillan | 10/10 | 5522 days | 1% |
| Jill Dean | 8/10 | 5525 days | 1% |
| Philipp Rau | 8/10 | 5529 days | 1% |
| Eva Stauderova | 10/10 | 5529 days | 1% |
| Annette Mogg | 10/10 | 5534 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 5661 days | 1% |
| Betty le Brech | 8/10 | 5857 days | 1% |
| Ed & Pat Mitchell | 9/10 | 5883 days | 1% |
| Sue Bennett | 7/10 | 5885 days | 0% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5885 days | 1% |
| Liz Pursey | 9/10 | 5895 days | 1% |
| pvo plas | 8/10 | 5897 days | 1% |
| Hoogh | 9/10 | 5900 days | 1% |
| Carina Raeder | 8/10 | 5901 days | 1% |
| John Rylance | 10/10 | 5902 days | 1% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 5902 days | 1% |
| Tonny | 9/10 | 5902 days | 1% |
| Tim | 7/10 | 5903 days | 0% |
| Allan Bond | 7/10 | 5909 days | 0% |
| uleugel | 9/10 | 5912 days | 1% |
| Jeannot Robert | 10/10 | 5913 days | 1% |
| Norbert Hainz | 8/10 | 5916 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5923 days | 1% |
| T S | 10/10 | 5934 days | 1% |
| eliertv | 9/10 | 5949 days | 1% |
| adamek | 7/10 | 5949 days | 0% |
| frederike | 8/10 | 5950 days | 1% |
| Karin Linder | 9/10 | 5969 days | 1% |
| Bue Verrept | 8/10 | 5972 days | 1% |
| Pia | 2/10 | 5976 days | 0% |
| Gebert | 8/10 | 5976 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 8/10 | 5977 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 9/10 | 5978 days | 1% |
| Kelly | 10/10 | 6119 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6189 days | 1% |
| AndySwitzerland | 8/10 | 6192 days | 1% |
| suet | 7/10 | 6209 days | 0% |
| scottl | 7/10 | 6209 days | 0% |
| neeltjec | 9/10 | 6209 days | 1% |
| Martien van Brakel | 9/10 | 6209 days | 1% |
| BevanLisa | 8/10 | 6226 days | 1% |
| JeremyE | 8/10 | 6227 days | 1% |
| TessaW | 4/10 | 6227 days | 0% |
| LucyT | 10/10 | 6227 days | 1% |
| Florens | 8/10 | 6229 days | 1% |
| Joel | 7/10 | 6229 days | 0% |
| Tiemen | 7/10 | 6229 days | 0% |
| NikkiB1 | 9/10 | 6244 days | 1% |
| BrunoS | 9/10 | 6244 days | 1% |
| JoseB | 9/10 | 6251 days | 1% |
| Debbie | 9/10 | 6251 days | 1% |
| InkenGermany | 9/10 | 6251 days | 1% |
| John | 7/10 | 6258 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
-0.80% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 60 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 43 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 40 | -0.75% |
| 41 | -0.77% |
| 42 | -0.78% |
| 43 | -0.80% |
| 44 | -0.82% |
| 45 | -0.84% |
| 46 | -0.86% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.27% 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.