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 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 | 159 days | 100% |
| Rich | 9/10 | 404 days | 93% |
| Jason C | 10/10 | 465 days | 91% |
| Donna | 10/10 | 465 days | 91% |
| Aoife | 8/10 | 647 days | 77% |
| Laura | 9/10 | 1227 days | 26% |
| Ferg | 10/10 | 1227 days | 26% |
| Inge | 8/10 | 1286 days | 22% |
| Cindi Wight | 9/10 | 1347 days | 18% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 1378 days | 16% |
| Alexis | 10/10 | 2230 days | 4% |
| Cody | 10/10 | 2322 days | 4% |
| Mike Smith | 7/10 | 2382 days | 3% |
| Beth Carlton | 1/10 | 2443 days | 1% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 2716 days | 3% |
| Emma | 9/10 | 2747 days | 3% |
| Demi Thompson | 6/10 | 2808 days | 2% |
| Brett See | 9/10 | 2839 days | 3% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2839 days | 3% |
| Urs Bruderer | 10/10 | 3527 days | 1% |
| Leslie Lindeman | 10/10 | 3739 days | 1% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3742 days | 1% |
| Phillippa McLernon | 8/10 | 3800 days | 1% |
| Tine Fook | 6/10 | 3836 days | 0% |
| Jan Towers | 8/10 | 4481 days | 1% |
| Brita Topp | 8/10 | 4483 days | 1% |
| Mike Fricker | 8/10 | 4483 days | 1% |
| Mark Towers | 8/10 | 4514 days | 1% |
| Rikke Petersen | 9/10 | 4532 days | 1% |
| Ted Cole | 8/10 | 4542 days | 1% |
| Nigel | 8/10 | 4549 days | 1% |
| catherine welsh | 8/10 | 4573 days | 1% |
| Nigel & Annie Dale | 8/10 | 4634 days | 1% |
| ozelmer | 6/10 | 4695 days | 0% |
| AusCampa | 9/10 | 4818 days | 1% |
| Mark Wiggington | 7/10 | 4842 days | 0% |
| Ken Milligan | 8/10 | 4866 days | 1% |
| Gale Willcocks | 10/10 | 4872 days | 1% |
| Ken Richardson | 8/10 | 4872 days | 1% |
| Heather Macdonald | 9/10 | 4907 days | 1% |
| Nadine | 9/10 | 4951 days | 1% |
| Robert Staeller | 8/10 | 4954 days | 1% |
| David and Sally Wallis | 9/10 | 4960 days | 1% |
| Jackie and Brian | 8/10 | 4961 days | 1% |
| Peter | 10/10 | 4962 days | 1% |
| Julia Ramseier | 10/10 | 4981 days | 1% |
| Lisa Blake | 8/10 | 4985 days | 1% |
| Ton Franke | 8/10 | 4985 days | 1% |
| Megan Child | 9/10 | 4986 days | 1% |
| Jonathan Tuthill | 10/10 | 5229 days | 1% |
| Carly Braddock | 10/10 | 5233 days | 1% |
| Def Fem | 8/10 | 5239 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5244 days | 0% |
| Michael Jefferies | 9/10 | 5247 days | 1% |
| Mark Bogton | 9/10 | 5253 days | 1% |
| Dominik Langenegger | 10/10 | 5255 days | 1% |
| Moehl | 9/10 | 5256 days | 1% |
| D Collier | 10/10 | 5257 days | 1% |
| Uwe Henze | 8/10 | 5258 days | 1% |
| Ute Rogawski | 7/10 | 5265 days | 0% |
| Nikita Sue | 7/10 | 5266 days | 0% |
| Heewin Otten | 10/10 | 5266 days | 1% |
| D R Valentine | 10/10 | 5267 days | 1% |
| Andreas Kristiansen | 9/10 | 5267 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5268 days | 1% |
| John Reynolds | 10/10 | 5268 days | 1% |
| Katie K | 10/10 | 5282 days | 1% |
| ZephyrTL | 8/10 | 5304 days | 1% |
| Peter, Noelle & Susanne | 10/10 | 5338 days | 1% |
| John & Myra Sloan | 9/10 | 5344 days | 1% |
| Jan & Marian | 10/10 | 5347 days | 1% |
| Andy Lever | 9/10 | 5350 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 8/10 | 5352 days | 1% |
| damaca | 9/10 | 5426 days | 1% |
| Tacksharp | 9/10 | 5488 days | 1% |
| Edward Marhi | 9/10 | 5576 days | 1% |
| Weez18 | 10/10 | 5579 days | 1% |
| de Smedt | 9/10 | 5582 days | 1% |
| Eric Grant | 8/10 | 5584 days | 1% |
| Koen Vanlede | 8/10 | 5596 days | 1% |
| Sue Top | 10/10 | 5597 days | 1% |
| Marty Fey | 5/10 | 5601 days | 0% |
| Gord Carnochan | 9/10 | 5611 days | 1% |
| Pam & Rob Tellwright | 8/10 | 5614 days | 1% |
| Derek Puplett | 9/10 | 5614 days | 1% |
| Callum Sibbald | 8/10 | 5614 days | 1% |
| Gerlach | 8/10 | 5615 days | 1% |
| Agnes McMillan | 10/10 | 5622 days | 1% |
| Jill Dean | 8/10 | 5625 days | 1% |
| Philipp Rau | 8/10 | 5629 days | 1% |
| Eva Stauderova | 10/10 | 5629 days | 1% |
| Annette Mogg | 10/10 | 5634 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 5761 days | 1% |
| Betty le Brech | 8/10 | 5957 days | 1% |
| Ed & Pat Mitchell | 9/10 | 5983 days | 1% |
| Sue Bennett | 7/10 | 5985 days | 0% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5985 days | 1% |
| Liz Pursey | 9/10 | 5995 days | 1% |
| pvo plas | 8/10 | 5997 days | 1% |
| Hoogh | 9/10 | 6000 days | 1% |
| Carina Raeder | 8/10 | 6001 days | 1% |
| John Rylance | 10/10 | 6002 days | 1% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 6002 days | 1% |
| Tonny | 9/10 | 6002 days | 1% |
| Tim | 7/10 | 6003 days | 0% |
| Allan Bond | 7/10 | 6009 days | 0% |
| uleugel | 9/10 | 6012 days | 1% |
| Jeannot Robert | 10/10 | 6013 days | 1% |
| Norbert Hainz | 8/10 | 6016 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 6023 days | 1% |
| T S | 10/10 | 6034 days | 1% |
| eliertv | 9/10 | 6049 days | 1% |
| adamek | 7/10 | 6049 days | 0% |
| frederike | 8/10 | 6050 days | 1% |
| Karin Linder | 9/10 | 6069 days | 1% |
| Bue Verrept | 8/10 | 6072 days | 1% |
| Pia | 2/10 | 6076 days | 0% |
| Gebert | 8/10 | 6076 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 8/10 | 6077 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 9/10 | 6078 days | 1% |
| Kelly | 10/10 | 6220 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6290 days | 1% |
| AndySwitzerland | 8/10 | 6293 days | 1% |
| suet | 7/10 | 6309 days | 0% |
| scottl | 7/10 | 6309 days | 0% |
| neeltjec | 9/10 | 6309 days | 1% |
| Martien van Brakel | 9/10 | 6309 days | 1% |
| BevanLisa | 8/10 | 6326 days | 1% |
| JeremyE | 8/10 | 6327 days | 1% |
| TessaW | 4/10 | 6327 days | 0% |
| LucyT | 10/10 | 6327 days | 1% |
| Florens | 8/10 | 6329 days | 1% |
| Joel | 7/10 | 6329 days | 0% |
| Tiemen | 7/10 | 6329 days | 0% |
| NikkiB1 | 9/10 | 6344 days | 1% |
| BrunoS | 9/10 | 6344 days | 1% |
| JoseB | 9/10 | 6351 days | 1% |
| Debbie | 9/10 | 6351 days | 1% |
| InkenGermany | 9/10 | 6351 days | 1% |
| John | 7/10 | 6358 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
-1.43% 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 143 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 140 | -1.40% |
| 141 | -1.41% |
| 142 | -1.42% |
| 143 | -1.43% |
| 144 | -1.44% |
| 145 | -1.45% |
| 146 | -1.46% |
| … | … |
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.