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
88.87%
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 | 239 days | 100% |
| Rich | 9/10 | 484 days | 90% |
| Jason C | 10/10 | 545 days | 88% |
| Donna | 10/10 | 545 days | 88% |
| Aoife | 8/10 | 727 days | 72% |
| Laura | 9/10 | 1307 days | 21% |
| Ferg | 10/10 | 1307 days | 21% |
| Inge | 8/10 | 1366 days | 17% |
| Cindi Wight | 9/10 | 1427 days | 14% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 1458 days | 13% |
| Alexis | 10/10 | 2310 days | 4% |
| Cody | 10/10 | 2402 days | 4% |
| Mike Smith | 7/10 | 2462 days | 3% |
| Beth Carlton | 1/10 | 2523 days | 1% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 2796 days | 3% |
| Emma | 9/10 | 2827 days | 3% |
| Demi Thompson | 6/10 | 2888 days | 2% |
| Brett See | 9/10 | 2919 days | 3% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2919 days | 3% |
| Urs Bruderer | 10/10 | 3607 days | 1% |
| Leslie Lindeman | 10/10 | 3819 days | 1% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3822 days | 1% |
| Phillippa McLernon | 8/10 | 3880 days | 1% |
| Tine Fook | 6/10 | 3916 days | 0% |
| Jan Towers | 8/10 | 4561 days | 1% |
| Brita Topp | 8/10 | 4563 days | 1% |
| Mike Fricker | 8/10 | 4563 days | 1% |
| Mark Towers | 8/10 | 4594 days | 1% |
| Rikke Petersen | 9/10 | 4612 days | 1% |
| Ted Cole | 8/10 | 4622 days | 1% |
| Nigel | 8/10 | 4629 days | 1% |
| catherine welsh | 8/10 | 4653 days | 1% |
| Nigel & Annie Dale | 8/10 | 4714 days | 1% |
| ozelmer | 6/10 | 4775 days | 0% |
| AusCampa | 9/10 | 4898 days | 1% |
| Mark Wiggington | 7/10 | 4922 days | 1% |
| Ken Milligan | 8/10 | 4946 days | 1% |
| Gale Willcocks | 10/10 | 4952 days | 1% |
| Ken Richardson | 8/10 | 4952 days | 1% |
| Heather Macdonald | 9/10 | 4987 days | 1% |
| Nadine | 9/10 | 5031 days | 1% |
| Robert Staeller | 8/10 | 5034 days | 1% |
| David and Sally Wallis | 9/10 | 5040 days | 1% |
| Jackie and Brian | 8/10 | 5041 days | 1% |
| Peter | 10/10 | 5042 days | 1% |
| Julia Ramseier | 10/10 | 5061 days | 1% |
| Lisa Blake | 8/10 | 5065 days | 1% |
| Ton Franke | 8/10 | 5065 days | 1% |
| Megan Child | 9/10 | 5066 days | 1% |
| Jonathan Tuthill | 10/10 | 5309 days | 1% |
| Carly Braddock | 10/10 | 5313 days | 1% |
| Def Fem | 8/10 | 5319 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5324 days | 1% |
| Michael Jefferies | 9/10 | 5327 days | 1% |
| Mark Bogton | 9/10 | 5333 days | 1% |
| Dominik Langenegger | 10/10 | 5335 days | 1% |
| Moehl | 9/10 | 5336 days | 1% |
| D Collier | 10/10 | 5337 days | 1% |
| Uwe Henze | 8/10 | 5338 days | 1% |
| Ute Rogawski | 7/10 | 5345 days | 1% |
| Nikita Sue | 7/10 | 5346 days | 1% |
| Heewin Otten | 10/10 | 5346 days | 1% |
| D R Valentine | 10/10 | 5347 days | 1% |
| Andreas Kristiansen | 9/10 | 5347 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5348 days | 1% |
| John Reynolds | 10/10 | 5348 days | 1% |
| Katie K | 10/10 | 5362 days | 1% |
| ZephyrTL | 8/10 | 5384 days | 1% |
| Peter, Noelle & Susanne | 10/10 | 5418 days | 1% |
| John & Myra Sloan | 9/10 | 5424 days | 1% |
| Jan & Marian | 10/10 | 5427 days | 1% |
| Andy Lever | 9/10 | 5430 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 8/10 | 5432 days | 1% |
| damaca | 9/10 | 5506 days | 1% |
| Tacksharp | 9/10 | 5568 days | 1% |
| Edward Marhi | 9/10 | 5656 days | 1% |
| Weez18 | 10/10 | 5659 days | 1% |
| de Smedt | 9/10 | 5662 days | 1% |
| Eric Grant | 8/10 | 5664 days | 1% |
| Koen Vanlede | 8/10 | 5676 days | 1% |
| Sue Top | 10/10 | 5677 days | 1% |
| Marty Fey | 5/10 | 5681 days | 0% |
| Gord Carnochan | 9/10 | 5691 days | 1% |
| Pam & Rob Tellwright | 8/10 | 5694 days | 1% |
| Derek Puplett | 9/10 | 5694 days | 1% |
| Callum Sibbald | 8/10 | 5694 days | 1% |
| Gerlach | 8/10 | 5695 days | 1% |
| Agnes McMillan | 10/10 | 5702 days | 1% |
| Jill Dean | 8/10 | 5705 days | 1% |
| Philipp Rau | 8/10 | 5709 days | 1% |
| Eva Stauderova | 10/10 | 5709 days | 1% |
| Annette Mogg | 10/10 | 5714 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 5841 days | 1% |
| Betty le Brech | 8/10 | 6037 days | 1% |
| Ed & Pat Mitchell | 9/10 | 6063 days | 1% |
| Sue Bennett | 7/10 | 6065 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 6065 days | 1% |
| Liz Pursey | 9/10 | 6075 days | 1% |
| pvo plas | 8/10 | 6077 days | 1% |
| Hoogh | 9/10 | 6080 days | 1% |
| Carina Raeder | 8/10 | 6081 days | 1% |
| John Rylance | 10/10 | 6082 days | 1% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 6082 days | 1% |
| Tonny | 9/10 | 6082 days | 1% |
| Tim | 7/10 | 6083 days | 1% |
| Allan Bond | 7/10 | 6089 days | 1% |
| uleugel | 9/10 | 6092 days | 1% |
| Jeannot Robert | 10/10 | 6093 days | 1% |
| Norbert Hainz | 8/10 | 6096 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 6103 days | 1% |
| T S | 10/10 | 6114 days | 1% |
| eliertv | 9/10 | 6129 days | 1% |
| adamek | 7/10 | 6129 days | 1% |
| frederike | 8/10 | 6130 days | 1% |
| Karin Linder | 9/10 | 6149 days | 1% |
| Bue Verrept | 8/10 | 6152 days | 1% |
| Pia | 2/10 | 6156 days | 0% |
| Gebert | 8/10 | 6156 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 8/10 | 6157 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 9/10 | 6158 days | 1% |
| Kelly | 10/10 | 6300 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6370 days | 1% |
| AndySwitzerland | 8/10 | 6373 days | 1% |
| suet | 7/10 | 6389 days | 1% |
| scottl | 7/10 | 6389 days | 1% |
| neeltjec | 9/10 | 6389 days | 1% |
| Martien van Brakel | 9/10 | 6389 days | 1% |
| BevanLisa | 8/10 | 6406 days | 1% |
| JeremyE | 8/10 | 6407 days | 1% |
| TessaW | 4/10 | 6407 days | 0% |
| LucyT | 10/10 | 6407 days | 1% |
| Florens | 8/10 | 6409 days | 1% |
| Joel | 7/10 | 6409 days | 1% |
| Tiemen | 7/10 | 6409 days | 1% |
| NikkiB1 | 9/10 | 6424 days | 1% |
| BrunoS | 9/10 | 6424 days | 1% |
| JoseB | 9/10 | 6431 days | 1% |
| Debbie | 9/10 | 6431 days | 1% |
| InkenGermany | 9/10 | 6431 days | 1% |
| John | 7/10 | 6438 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 Picton Tasman Holiday Parks experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-3.21% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 69 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 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -3.16% |
| 198 | -3.17% |
| 199 | -3.19% |
| 200 | -3.21% |
| 201 | -3.22% |
| 202 | -3.24% |
| 203 | -3.26% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.70% 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
87%
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.