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
88.85%
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 | 280 days | 100% |
| Rich | 9/10 | 525 days | 89% |
| Jason C | 10/10 | 586 days | 86% |
| Donna | 10/10 | 586 days | 86% |
| Aoife | 8/10 | 768 days | 69% |
| Laura | 9/10 | 1348 days | 19% |
| Ferg | 10/10 | 1348 days | 19% |
| Inge | 8/10 | 1407 days | 15% |
| Cindi Wight | 9/10 | 1468 days | 13% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 1499 days | 11% |
| Alexis | 10/10 | 2351 days | 4% |
| Cody | 10/10 | 2443 days | 4% |
| Mike Smith | 7/10 | 2503 days | 3% |
| Beth Carlton | 1/10 | 2564 days | 1% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 2837 days | 3% |
| Emma | 9/10 | 2868 days | 3% |
| Demi Thompson | 6/10 | 2929 days | 2% |
| Brett See | 9/10 | 2960 days | 2% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2960 days | 2% |
| Urs Bruderer | 10/10 | 3648 days | 1% |
| Leslie Lindeman | 10/10 | 3860 days | 1% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3863 days | 1% |
| Phillippa McLernon | 8/10 | 3921 days | 0% |
| Tine Fook | 6/10 | 3957 days | 0% |
| Jan Towers | 8/10 | 4602 days | 1% |
| Brita Topp | 8/10 | 4604 days | 1% |
| Mike Fricker | 8/10 | 4604 days | 1% |
| Mark Towers | 8/10 | 4635 days | 1% |
| Rikke Petersen | 9/10 | 4653 days | 1% |
| Ted Cole | 8/10 | 4663 days | 1% |
| Nigel | 8/10 | 4670 days | 1% |
| catherine welsh | 8/10 | 4694 days | 1% |
| Nigel & Annie Dale | 8/10 | 4755 days | 1% |
| ozelmer | 6/10 | 4816 days | 0% |
| AusCampa | 9/10 | 4939 days | 1% |
| Mark Wiggington | 7/10 | 4963 days | 1% |
| Ken Milligan | 8/10 | 4987 days | 1% |
| Gale Willcocks | 10/10 | 4993 days | 1% |
| Ken Richardson | 8/10 | 4993 days | 1% |
| Heather Macdonald | 9/10 | 5028 days | 1% |
| Nadine | 9/10 | 5072 days | 1% |
| Robert Staeller | 8/10 | 5075 days | 1% |
| David and Sally Wallis | 9/10 | 5081 days | 1% |
| Jackie and Brian | 8/10 | 5082 days | 1% |
| Peter | 10/10 | 5083 days | 1% |
| Julia Ramseier | 10/10 | 5102 days | 1% |
| Lisa Blake | 8/10 | 5106 days | 1% |
| Ton Franke | 8/10 | 5106 days | 1% |
| Megan Child | 9/10 | 5107 days | 1% |
| Jonathan Tuthill | 10/10 | 5350 days | 1% |
| Carly Braddock | 10/10 | 5354 days | 1% |
| Def Fem | 8/10 | 5360 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5365 days | 1% |
| Michael Jefferies | 9/10 | 5368 days | 1% |
| Mark Bogton | 9/10 | 5374 days | 1% |
| Dominik Langenegger | 10/10 | 5376 days | 1% |
| Moehl | 9/10 | 5377 days | 1% |
| D Collier | 10/10 | 5378 days | 1% |
| Uwe Henze | 8/10 | 5379 days | 1% |
| Ute Rogawski | 7/10 | 5386 days | 1% |
| Nikita Sue | 7/10 | 5387 days | 1% |
| Heewin Otten | 10/10 | 5387 days | 1% |
| D R Valentine | 10/10 | 5388 days | 1% |
| Andreas Kristiansen | 9/10 | 5388 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5389 days | 1% |
| John Reynolds | 10/10 | 5389 days | 1% |
| Katie K | 10/10 | 5403 days | 1% |
| ZephyrTL | 8/10 | 5425 days | 1% |
| Peter, Noelle & Susanne | 10/10 | 5459 days | 1% |
| John & Myra Sloan | 9/10 | 5465 days | 1% |
| Jan & Marian | 10/10 | 5468 days | 1% |
| Andy Lever | 9/10 | 5471 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 8/10 | 5473 days | 1% |
| damaca | 9/10 | 5547 days | 1% |
| Tacksharp | 9/10 | 5609 days | 1% |
| Edward Marhi | 9/10 | 5697 days | 1% |
| Weez18 | 10/10 | 5700 days | 1% |
| de Smedt | 9/10 | 5703 days | 1% |
| Eric Grant | 8/10 | 5705 days | 1% |
| Koen Vanlede | 8/10 | 5717 days | 1% |
| Sue Top | 10/10 | 5718 days | 1% |
| Marty Fey | 5/10 | 5722 days | 0% |
| Gord Carnochan | 9/10 | 5732 days | 1% |
| Pam & Rob Tellwright | 8/10 | 5735 days | 1% |
| Derek Puplett | 9/10 | 5735 days | 1% |
| Callum Sibbald | 8/10 | 5735 days | 1% |
| Gerlach | 8/10 | 5736 days | 1% |
| Agnes McMillan | 10/10 | 5743 days | 1% |
| Jill Dean | 8/10 | 5746 days | 1% |
| Philipp Rau | 8/10 | 5750 days | 1% |
| Eva Stauderova | 10/10 | 5750 days | 1% |
| Annette Mogg | 10/10 | 5755 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 5882 days | 1% |
| Betty le Brech | 8/10 | 6078 days | 1% |
| Ed & Pat Mitchell | 9/10 | 6104 days | 1% |
| Sue Bennett | 7/10 | 6106 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 6106 days | 1% |
| Liz Pursey | 9/10 | 6116 days | 1% |
| pvo plas | 8/10 | 6118 days | 1% |
| Hoogh | 9/10 | 6121 days | 1% |
| Carina Raeder | 8/10 | 6122 days | 1% |
| John Rylance | 10/10 | 6123 days | 1% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 6123 days | 1% |
| Tonny | 9/10 | 6123 days | 1% |
| Tim | 7/10 | 6124 days | 1% |
| Allan Bond | 7/10 | 6130 days | 1% |
| uleugel | 9/10 | 6133 days | 1% |
| Jeannot Robert | 10/10 | 6134 days | 1% |
| Norbert Hainz | 8/10 | 6137 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 6144 days | 1% |
| T S | 10/10 | 6155 days | 1% |
| eliertv | 9/10 | 6170 days | 1% |
| adamek | 7/10 | 6170 days | 1% |
| frederike | 8/10 | 6171 days | 1% |
| Karin Linder | 9/10 | 6190 days | 1% |
| Bue Verrept | 8/10 | 6193 days | 1% |
| Pia | 2/10 | 6197 days | 0% |
| Gebert | 8/10 | 6197 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 8/10 | 6198 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 9/10 | 6199 days | 1% |
| Kelly | 10/10 | 6341 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6411 days | 1% |
| AndySwitzerland | 8/10 | 6414 days | 1% |
| suet | 7/10 | 6430 days | 1% |
| scottl | 7/10 | 6430 days | 1% |
| neeltjec | 9/10 | 6430 days | 1% |
| Martien van Brakel | 9/10 | 6430 days | 1% |
| BevanLisa | 8/10 | 6447 days | 1% |
| JeremyE | 8/10 | 6448 days | 1% |
| TessaW | 4/10 | 6448 days | 0% |
| LucyT | 10/10 | 6448 days | 1% |
| Florens | 8/10 | 6450 days | 1% |
| Joel | 7/10 | 6450 days | 1% |
| Tiemen | 7/10 | 6450 days | 1% |
| NikkiB1 | 9/10 | 6465 days | 1% |
| BrunoS | 9/10 | 6465 days | 1% |
| JoseB | 9/10 | 6472 days | 1% |
| Debbie | 9/10 | 6472 days | 1% |
| InkenGermany | 9/10 | 6472 days | 1% |
| John | 7/10 | 6479 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
-3.94% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 47 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 | -3.88% |
| 198 | -3.90% |
| 199 | -3.92% |
| 200 | -3.94% |
| 201 | -3.96% |
| 202 | -3.98% |
| 203 | -4.00% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.84% 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.