G'day, 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
88.92%
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 | 119 days | 100% |
| Rich | 9/10 | 364 days | 94% |
| Jason C | 10/10 | 425 days | 92% |
| Donna | 10/10 | 425 days | 92% |
| Aoife | 8/10 | 607 days | 80% |
| Laura | 9/10 | 1187 days | 28% |
| Ferg | 10/10 | 1187 days | 29% |
| Inge | 8/10 | 1246 days | 24% |
| Cindi Wight | 9/10 | 1307 days | 20% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 1338 days | 18% |
| Alexis | 10/10 | 2190 days | 4% |
| Cody | 10/10 | 2282 days | 4% |
| Mike Smith | 7/10 | 2342 days | 3% |
| Beth Carlton | 1/10 | 2403 days | 1% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 2676 days | 3% |
| Emma | 9/10 | 2707 days | 3% |
| Demi Thompson | 6/10 | 2768 days | 2% |
| Brett See | 9/10 | 2799 days | 3% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2799 days | 3% |
| Urs Bruderer | 10/10 | 3487 days | 1% |
| Leslie Lindeman | 10/10 | 3699 days | 1% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3702 days | 1% |
| Phillippa McLernon | 8/10 | 3760 days | 1% |
| Tine Fook | 6/10 | 3796 days | 1% |
| Jan Towers | 8/10 | 4441 days | 1% |
| Brita Topp | 8/10 | 4443 days | 1% |
| Mike Fricker | 8/10 | 4443 days | 1% |
| Mark Towers | 8/10 | 4474 days | 1% |
| Rikke Petersen | 9/10 | 4492 days | 1% |
| Ted Cole | 8/10 | 4502 days | 1% |
| Nigel | 8/10 | 4509 days | 1% |
| catherine welsh | 8/10 | 4533 days | 1% |
| Nigel & Annie Dale | 8/10 | 4594 days | 1% |
| ozelmer | 6/10 | 4655 days | 0% |
| AusCampa | 9/10 | 4778 days | 1% |
| Mark Wiggington | 7/10 | 4802 days | 0% |
| Ken Milligan | 8/10 | 4826 days | 1% |
| Gale Willcocks | 10/10 | 4832 days | 1% |
| Ken Richardson | 8/10 | 4832 days | 1% |
| Heather Macdonald | 9/10 | 4867 days | 1% |
| Nadine | 9/10 | 4911 days | 1% |
| Robert Staeller | 8/10 | 4914 days | 1% |
| David and Sally Wallis | 9/10 | 4920 days | 1% |
| Jackie and Brian | 8/10 | 4921 days | 1% |
| Peter | 10/10 | 4922 days | 1% |
| Julia Ramseier | 10/10 | 4941 days | 1% |
| Lisa Blake | 8/10 | 4945 days | 1% |
| Ton Franke | 8/10 | 4945 days | 1% |
| Megan Child | 9/10 | 4946 days | 1% |
| Jonathan Tuthill | 10/10 | 5189 days | 1% |
| Carly Braddock | 10/10 | 5193 days | 1% |
| Def Fem | 8/10 | 5199 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5204 days | 0% |
| Michael Jefferies | 9/10 | 5207 days | 1% |
| Mark Bogton | 9/10 | 5213 days | 1% |
| Dominik Langenegger | 10/10 | 5215 days | 1% |
| Moehl | 9/10 | 5216 days | 1% |
| D Collier | 10/10 | 5217 days | 1% |
| Uwe Henze | 8/10 | 5218 days | 1% |
| Ute Rogawski | 7/10 | 5225 days | 0% |
| Nikita Sue | 7/10 | 5226 days | 0% |
| Heewin Otten | 10/10 | 5226 days | 1% |
| D R Valentine | 10/10 | 5227 days | 1% |
| Andreas Kristiansen | 9/10 | 5227 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5228 days | 1% |
| John Reynolds | 10/10 | 5228 days | 1% |
| Katie K | 10/10 | 5242 days | 1% |
| ZephyrTL | 8/10 | 5264 days | 1% |
| Peter, Noelle & Susanne | 10/10 | 5298 days | 1% |
| John & Myra Sloan | 9/10 | 5304 days | 1% |
| Jan & Marian | 10/10 | 5307 days | 1% |
| Andy Lever | 9/10 | 5310 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 8/10 | 5312 days | 1% |
| damaca | 9/10 | 5386 days | 1% |
| Tacksharp | 9/10 | 5448 days | 1% |
| Edward Marhi | 9/10 | 5536 days | 1% |
| Weez18 | 10/10 | 5539 days | 1% |
| de Smedt | 9/10 | 5542 days | 1% |
| Eric Grant | 8/10 | 5544 days | 1% |
| Koen Vanlede | 8/10 | 5556 days | 1% |
| Sue Top | 10/10 | 5557 days | 1% |
| Marty Fey | 5/10 | 5561 days | 0% |
| Gord Carnochan | 9/10 | 5571 days | 1% |
| Pam & Rob Tellwright | 8/10 | 5574 days | 1% |
| Derek Puplett | 9/10 | 5574 days | 1% |
| Callum Sibbald | 8/10 | 5574 days | 1% |
| Gerlach | 8/10 | 5575 days | 1% |
| Agnes McMillan | 10/10 | 5582 days | 1% |
| Jill Dean | 8/10 | 5585 days | 1% |
| Philipp Rau | 8/10 | 5589 days | 1% |
| Eva Stauderova | 10/10 | 5589 days | 1% |
| Annette Mogg | 10/10 | 5594 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 5721 days | 1% |
| Betty le Brech | 8/10 | 5917 days | 1% |
| Ed & Pat Mitchell | 9/10 | 5943 days | 1% |
| Sue Bennett | 7/10 | 5945 days | 0% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5945 days | 1% |
| Liz Pursey | 9/10 | 5955 days | 1% |
| pvo plas | 8/10 | 5957 days | 1% |
| Hoogh | 9/10 | 5960 days | 1% |
| Carina Raeder | 8/10 | 5961 days | 1% |
| John Rylance | 10/10 | 5962 days | 1% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 5962 days | 1% |
| Tonny | 9/10 | 5962 days | 1% |
| Tim | 7/10 | 5963 days | 0% |
| Allan Bond | 7/10 | 5969 days | 0% |
| uleugel | 9/10 | 5972 days | 1% |
| Jeannot Robert | 10/10 | 5973 days | 1% |
| Norbert Hainz | 8/10 | 5976 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5983 days | 1% |
| T S | 10/10 | 5994 days | 1% |
| eliertv | 9/10 | 6009 days | 1% |
| adamek | 7/10 | 6009 days | 0% |
| frederike | 8/10 | 6010 days | 1% |
| Karin Linder | 9/10 | 6029 days | 1% |
| Bue Verrept | 8/10 | 6032 days | 1% |
| Pia | 2/10 | 6036 days | 0% |
| Gebert | 8/10 | 6036 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 8/10 | 6037 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 9/10 | 6038 days | 1% |
| Kelly | 10/10 | 6180 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6250 days | 1% |
| AndySwitzerland | 8/10 | 6253 days | 1% |
| suet | 7/10 | 6269 days | 0% |
| scottl | 7/10 | 6269 days | 0% |
| neeltjec | 9/10 | 6269 days | 1% |
| Martien van Brakel | 9/10 | 6269 days | 1% |
| BevanLisa | 8/10 | 6286 days | 1% |
| JeremyE | 8/10 | 6287 days | 1% |
| TessaW | 4/10 | 6287 days | 0% |
| LucyT | 10/10 | 6287 days | 1% |
| Florens | 8/10 | 6289 days | 1% |
| Joel | 7/10 | 6289 days | 0% |
| Tiemen | 7/10 | 6289 days | 0% |
| NikkiB1 | 9/10 | 6304 days | 1% |
| BrunoS | 9/10 | 6304 days | 1% |
| JoseB | 9/10 | 6311 days | 1% |
| Debbie | 9/10 | 6311 days | 1% |
| InkenGermany | 9/10 | 6311 days | 1% |
| John | 7/10 | 6318 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
-1.27% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 105 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 103 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 100 | -1.24% |
| 101 | -1.25% |
| 102 | -1.26% |
| 103 | -1.27% |
| 104 | -1.28% |
| 105 | -1.30% |
| 106 | -1.31% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.35% 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.