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 | 79 days | 100% |
| Rich | 9/10 | 324 days | 95% |
| Jason C | 10/10 | 385 days | 94% |
| Donna | 10/10 | 385 days | 94% |
| Aoife | 8/10 | 567 days | 82% |
| Laura | 9/10 | 1147 days | 31% |
| Ferg | 10/10 | 1147 days | 32% |
| Inge | 8/10 | 1206 days | 27% |
| Cindi Wight | 9/10 | 1267 days | 23% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 1298 days | 21% |
| Alexis | 10/10 | 2150 days | 4% |
| Cody | 10/10 | 2242 days | 4% |
| Mike Smith | 7/10 | 2302 days | 3% |
| Beth Carlton | 1/10 | 2363 days | 1% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 2636 days | 3% |
| Emma | 9/10 | 2667 days | 3% |
| Demi Thompson | 6/10 | 2728 days | 2% |
| Brett See | 9/10 | 2759 days | 3% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2759 days | 3% |
| Urs Bruderer | 10/10 | 3447 days | 1% |
| Leslie Lindeman | 10/10 | 3659 days | 1% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3662 days | 1% |
| Phillippa McLernon | 8/10 | 3720 days | 1% |
| Tine Fook | 6/10 | 3756 days | 1% |
| Jan Towers | 8/10 | 4401 days | 1% |
| Brita Topp | 8/10 | 4403 days | 1% |
| Mike Fricker | 8/10 | 4403 days | 1% |
| Mark Towers | 8/10 | 4434 days | 1% |
| Rikke Petersen | 9/10 | 4452 days | 1% |
| Ted Cole | 8/10 | 4462 days | 1% |
| Nigel | 8/10 | 4469 days | 1% |
| catherine welsh | 8/10 | 4493 days | 1% |
| Nigel & Annie Dale | 8/10 | 4554 days | 1% |
| ozelmer | 6/10 | 4615 days | 0% |
| AusCampa | 9/10 | 4738 days | 1% |
| Mark Wiggington | 7/10 | 4762 days | 0% |
| Ken Milligan | 8/10 | 4786 days | 1% |
| Gale Willcocks | 10/10 | 4792 days | 1% |
| Ken Richardson | 8/10 | 4792 days | 1% |
| Heather Macdonald | 9/10 | 4827 days | 1% |
| Nadine | 9/10 | 4871 days | 1% |
| Robert Staeller | 8/10 | 4874 days | 1% |
| David and Sally Wallis | 9/10 | 4880 days | 1% |
| Jackie and Brian | 8/10 | 4881 days | 1% |
| Peter | 10/10 | 4882 days | 1% |
| Julia Ramseier | 10/10 | 4901 days | 1% |
| Lisa Blake | 8/10 | 4905 days | 1% |
| Ton Franke | 8/10 | 4905 days | 1% |
| Megan Child | 9/10 | 4906 days | 1% |
| Jonathan Tuthill | 10/10 | 5149 days | 1% |
| Carly Braddock | 10/10 | 5153 days | 1% |
| Def Fem | 8/10 | 5159 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5164 days | 0% |
| Michael Jefferies | 9/10 | 5167 days | 1% |
| Mark Bogton | 9/10 | 5173 days | 1% |
| Dominik Langenegger | 10/10 | 5175 days | 1% |
| Moehl | 9/10 | 5176 days | 1% |
| D Collier | 10/10 | 5177 days | 1% |
| Uwe Henze | 8/10 | 5178 days | 1% |
| Ute Rogawski | 7/10 | 5185 days | 0% |
| Nikita Sue | 7/10 | 5186 days | 0% |
| Heewin Otten | 10/10 | 5186 days | 1% |
| D R Valentine | 10/10 | 5187 days | 1% |
| Andreas Kristiansen | 9/10 | 5187 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5188 days | 1% |
| John Reynolds | 10/10 | 5188 days | 1% |
| Katie K | 10/10 | 5202 days | 1% |
| ZephyrTL | 8/10 | 5224 days | 1% |
| Peter, Noelle & Susanne | 10/10 | 5258 days | 1% |
| John & Myra Sloan | 9/10 | 5264 days | 1% |
| Jan & Marian | 10/10 | 5267 days | 1% |
| Andy Lever | 9/10 | 5270 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 8/10 | 5272 days | 1% |
| damaca | 9/10 | 5346 days | 1% |
| Tacksharp | 9/10 | 5408 days | 1% |
| Edward Marhi | 9/10 | 5496 days | 1% |
| Weez18 | 10/10 | 5499 days | 1% |
| de Smedt | 9/10 | 5502 days | 1% |
| Eric Grant | 8/10 | 5504 days | 1% |
| Koen Vanlede | 8/10 | 5516 days | 1% |
| Sue Top | 10/10 | 5517 days | 1% |
| Marty Fey | 5/10 | 5521 days | 0% |
| Gord Carnochan | 9/10 | 5531 days | 1% |
| Pam & Rob Tellwright | 8/10 | 5534 days | 1% |
| Derek Puplett | 9/10 | 5534 days | 1% |
| Callum Sibbald | 8/10 | 5534 days | 1% |
| Gerlach | 8/10 | 5535 days | 1% |
| Agnes McMillan | 10/10 | 5542 days | 1% |
| Jill Dean | 8/10 | 5545 days | 1% |
| Philipp Rau | 8/10 | 5549 days | 1% |
| Eva Stauderova | 10/10 | 5549 days | 1% |
| Annette Mogg | 10/10 | 5554 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 5681 days | 1% |
| Betty le Brech | 8/10 | 5877 days | 1% |
| Ed & Pat Mitchell | 9/10 | 5903 days | 1% |
| Sue Bennett | 7/10 | 5905 days | 0% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5905 days | 1% |
| Liz Pursey | 9/10 | 5915 days | 1% |
| pvo plas | 8/10 | 5917 days | 1% |
| Hoogh | 9/10 | 5920 days | 1% |
| Carina Raeder | 8/10 | 5921 days | 1% |
| John Rylance | 10/10 | 5922 days | 1% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 5922 days | 1% |
| Tonny | 9/10 | 5922 days | 1% |
| Tim | 7/10 | 5923 days | 0% |
| Allan Bond | 7/10 | 5929 days | 0% |
| uleugel | 9/10 | 5932 days | 1% |
| Jeannot Robert | 10/10 | 5933 days | 1% |
| Norbert Hainz | 8/10 | 5936 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5943 days | 1% |
| T S | 10/10 | 5954 days | 1% |
| eliertv | 9/10 | 5969 days | 1% |
| adamek | 7/10 | 5969 days | 0% |
| frederike | 8/10 | 5970 days | 1% |
| Karin Linder | 9/10 | 5989 days | 1% |
| Bue Verrept | 8/10 | 5992 days | 1% |
| Pia | 2/10 | 5996 days | 0% |
| Gebert | 8/10 | 5996 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 8/10 | 5997 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 9/10 | 5998 days | 1% |
| Kelly | 10/10 | 6140 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6210 days | 1% |
| AndySwitzerland | 8/10 | 6213 days | 1% |
| suet | 7/10 | 6229 days | 0% |
| scottl | 7/10 | 6229 days | 0% |
| neeltjec | 9/10 | 6229 days | 1% |
| Martien van Brakel | 9/10 | 6229 days | 1% |
| BevanLisa | 8/10 | 6246 days | 1% |
| JeremyE | 8/10 | 6247 days | 1% |
| TessaW | 4/10 | 6247 days | 0% |
| LucyT | 10/10 | 6247 days | 1% |
| Florens | 8/10 | 6249 days | 1% |
| Joel | 7/10 | 6249 days | 0% |
| Tiemen | 7/10 | 6249 days | 0% |
| NikkiB1 | 9/10 | 6264 days | 1% |
| BrunoS | 9/10 | 6264 days | 1% |
| JoseB | 9/10 | 6271 days | 1% |
| Debbie | 9/10 | 6271 days | 1% |
| InkenGermany | 9/10 | 6271 days | 1% |
| John | 7/10 | 6278 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
-1.05% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 70 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 63 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 60 | -1.00% |
| 61 | -1.02% |
| 62 | -1.03% |
| 63 | -1.05% |
| 64 | -1.07% |
| 65 | -1.08% |
| 66 | -1.10% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.31% 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.