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
88.90%
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 | 179 days | 100% |
| Rich | 9/10 | 424 days | 92% |
| Jason C | 10/10 | 485 days | 90% |
| Donna | 10/10 | 485 days | 90% |
| Aoife | 8/10 | 667 days | 76% |
| Laura | 9/10 | 1247 days | 24% |
| Ferg | 10/10 | 1247 days | 25% |
| Inge | 8/10 | 1306 days | 20% |
| Cindi Wight | 9/10 | 1367 days | 17% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 1398 days | 15% |
| Alexis | 10/10 | 2250 days | 4% |
| Cody | 10/10 | 2342 days | 4% |
| Mike Smith | 7/10 | 2402 days | 3% |
| Beth Carlton | 1/10 | 2463 days | 1% |
| Christian | 10/10 | 2736 days | 3% |
| Emma | 9/10 | 2767 days | 3% |
| Demi Thompson | 6/10 | 2828 days | 2% |
| Brett See | 9/10 | 2859 days | 3% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2859 days | 3% |
| Urs Bruderer | 10/10 | 3547 days | 1% |
| Leslie Lindeman | 10/10 | 3759 days | 1% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3762 days | 1% |
| Phillippa McLernon | 8/10 | 3820 days | 1% |
| Tine Fook | 6/10 | 3856 days | 0% |
| Jan Towers | 8/10 | 4501 days | 1% |
| Brita Topp | 8/10 | 4503 days | 1% |
| Mike Fricker | 8/10 | 4503 days | 1% |
| Mark Towers | 8/10 | 4534 days | 1% |
| Rikke Petersen | 9/10 | 4552 days | 1% |
| Ted Cole | 8/10 | 4562 days | 1% |
| Nigel | 8/10 | 4569 days | 1% |
| catherine welsh | 8/10 | 4593 days | 1% |
| Nigel & Annie Dale | 8/10 | 4654 days | 1% |
| ozelmer | 6/10 | 4715 days | 0% |
| AusCampa | 9/10 | 4838 days | 1% |
| Mark Wiggington | 7/10 | 4862 days | 0% |
| Ken Milligan | 8/10 | 4886 days | 1% |
| Gale Willcocks | 10/10 | 4892 days | 1% |
| Ken Richardson | 8/10 | 4892 days | 1% |
| Heather Macdonald | 9/10 | 4927 days | 1% |
| Nadine | 9/10 | 4971 days | 1% |
| Robert Staeller | 8/10 | 4974 days | 1% |
| David and Sally Wallis | 9/10 | 4980 days | 1% |
| Jackie and Brian | 8/10 | 4981 days | 1% |
| Peter | 10/10 | 4982 days | 1% |
| Julia Ramseier | 10/10 | 5001 days | 1% |
| Lisa Blake | 8/10 | 5005 days | 1% |
| Ton Franke | 8/10 | 5005 days | 1% |
| Megan Child | 9/10 | 5006 days | 1% |
| Jonathan Tuthill | 10/10 | 5249 days | 1% |
| Carly Braddock | 10/10 | 5253 days | 1% |
| Def Fem | 8/10 | 5259 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5264 days | 0% |
| Michael Jefferies | 9/10 | 5267 days | 1% |
| Mark Bogton | 9/10 | 5273 days | 1% |
| Dominik Langenegger | 10/10 | 5275 days | 1% |
| Moehl | 9/10 | 5276 days | 1% |
| D Collier | 10/10 | 5277 days | 1% |
| Uwe Henze | 8/10 | 5278 days | 1% |
| Ute Rogawski | 7/10 | 5285 days | 0% |
| Nikita Sue | 7/10 | 5286 days | 0% |
| Heewin Otten | 10/10 | 5286 days | 1% |
| D R Valentine | 10/10 | 5287 days | 1% |
| Andreas Kristiansen | 9/10 | 5287 days | 1% |
| Petra | 10/10 | 5288 days | 1% |
| John Reynolds | 10/10 | 5288 days | 1% |
| Katie K | 10/10 | 5302 days | 1% |
| ZephyrTL | 8/10 | 5324 days | 1% |
| Peter, Noelle & Susanne | 10/10 | 5358 days | 1% |
| John & Myra Sloan | 9/10 | 5364 days | 1% |
| Jan & Marian | 10/10 | 5367 days | 1% |
| Andy Lever | 9/10 | 5370 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 8/10 | 5372 days | 1% |
| damaca | 9/10 | 5446 days | 1% |
| Tacksharp | 9/10 | 5508 days | 1% |
| Edward Marhi | 9/10 | 5596 days | 1% |
| Weez18 | 10/10 | 5599 days | 1% |
| de Smedt | 9/10 | 5602 days | 1% |
| Eric Grant | 8/10 | 5604 days | 1% |
| Koen Vanlede | 8/10 | 5616 days | 1% |
| Sue Top | 10/10 | 5617 days | 1% |
| Marty Fey | 5/10 | 5621 days | 0% |
| Gord Carnochan | 9/10 | 5631 days | 1% |
| Pam & Rob Tellwright | 8/10 | 5634 days | 1% |
| Derek Puplett | 9/10 | 5634 days | 1% |
| Callum Sibbald | 8/10 | 5634 days | 1% |
| Gerlach | 8/10 | 5635 days | 1% |
| Agnes McMillan | 10/10 | 5642 days | 1% |
| Jill Dean | 8/10 | 5645 days | 1% |
| Philipp Rau | 8/10 | 5649 days | 1% |
| Eva Stauderova | 10/10 | 5649 days | 1% |
| Annette Mogg | 10/10 | 5654 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 5781 days | 1% |
| Betty le Brech | 8/10 | 5977 days | 1% |
| Ed & Pat Mitchell | 9/10 | 6003 days | 1% |
| Sue Bennett | 7/10 | 6005 days | 0% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 6005 days | 1% |
| Liz Pursey | 9/10 | 6015 days | 1% |
| pvo plas | 8/10 | 6017 days | 1% |
| Hoogh | 9/10 | 6020 days | 1% |
| Carina Raeder | 8/10 | 6021 days | 1% |
| John Rylance | 10/10 | 6022 days | 1% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 6022 days | 1% |
| Tonny | 9/10 | 6022 days | 1% |
| Tim | 7/10 | 6023 days | 0% |
| Allan Bond | 7/10 | 6029 days | 0% |
| uleugel | 9/10 | 6032 days | 1% |
| Jeannot Robert | 10/10 | 6033 days | 1% |
| Norbert Hainz | 8/10 | 6036 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 6043 days | 1% |
| T S | 10/10 | 6054 days | 1% |
| eliertv | 9/10 | 6069 days | 1% |
| adamek | 7/10 | 6069 days | 0% |
| frederike | 8/10 | 6070 days | 1% |
| Karin Linder | 9/10 | 6089 days | 1% |
| Bue Verrept | 8/10 | 6092 days | 1% |
| Pia | 2/10 | 6096 days | 0% |
| Gebert | 8/10 | 6096 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 8/10 | 6097 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 9/10 | 6098 days | 1% |
| Kelly | 10/10 | 6240 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6310 days | 1% |
| AndySwitzerland | 8/10 | 6313 days | 1% |
| suet | 7/10 | 6329 days | 0% |
| scottl | 7/10 | 6329 days | 0% |
| neeltjec | 9/10 | 6329 days | 1% |
| Martien van Brakel | 9/10 | 6329 days | 1% |
| BevanLisa | 8/10 | 6346 days | 1% |
| JeremyE | 8/10 | 6347 days | 1% |
| TessaW | 4/10 | 6347 days | 0% |
| LucyT | 10/10 | 6347 days | 1% |
| Florens | 8/10 | 6349 days | 1% |
| Joel | 7/10 | 6349 days | 0% |
| Tiemen | 7/10 | 6349 days | 0% |
| NikkiB1 | 9/10 | 6364 days | 1% |
| BrunoS | 9/10 | 6364 days | 1% |
| JoseB | 9/10 | 6371 days | 1% |
| Debbie | 9/10 | 6371 days | 1% |
| InkenGermany | 9/10 | 6371 days | 1% |
| John | 7/10 | 6378 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
-1.70% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 123 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 163 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 160 | -1.67% |
| 161 | -1.68% |
| 162 | -1.69% |
| 163 | -1.70% |
| 164 | -1.71% |
| 165 | -1.72% |
| 166 | -1.73% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.42% 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.