Ranking Score Explained
Hi there, 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 Smiths Farm Holiday Park.
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.
Smiths Farm Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
110 Valid Reviews
The Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has a total of 111 reviews. There are 110 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 110 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 74 |
|
67% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
24% |
| 8/10 | 8 |
|
7% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
95.45% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Smiths Farm Holiday Park valid reviews is 95.45% and is based on 110 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
29 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 110 valid reviews, the experience has 29 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 29 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 13 |
|
45% |
| 9/10 | 11 |
|
38% |
| 8/10 | 5 |
|
17% |
| 7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
92.76% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Smiths Farm Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 92.76% and is based on 29 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
96.21%
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 | Face-to-Face | Weight | Relative Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 51 days | 99.59 | 100% | |
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 82 days | 98.93 | 99% | |
| Nia | 9/10 | 173 days | 95.26 | 96% | |
| Maeike | 9/10 | 204 days | 93.41 | 94% | |
| Maika Laura | 10/10 | 204 days | 93.41 | 94% | |
| Axel & Sabine | 10/10 | 204 days | 93.41 | 94% | |
| Michael | 10/10 | 232 days | 91.47 | 92% | |
| Simone Maccagnan | 10/10 | 263 days | 89.04 | 89% | |
| Beate | 9/10 | 263 days | 89.04 | 89% | |
| Jonas and Lottie | 10/10 | 294 days | 86.3 | 87% | |
| Anita | 9/10 | 294 days | 86.3 | 87% | |
| Lance | 10/10 | 324 days | 83.37 | 84% | |
| Julia Thompson | 10/10 | 324 days | 83.37 | 84% | |
| Brett See | 10/10 | 355 days | 80.03 | 80% | |
| Grizzly Girl | 9/10 | 355 days | 80.03 | 80% | |
| kael Matthews | 9/10 | 355 days | 80.03 | 80% | |
| Kimberly | 10/10 | 385 days | 76.51 | 77% | |
| Jenna webber | 9/10 | 385 days | 76.51 | 77% | |
| Karina | 10/10 | 569 days | 48.84 | 49% | |
| Alde | 10/10 | 569 days | 48.84 | 49% | |
| The Weathersons | 9/10 | 582 days |  |
46.7 | 47% |
| Tina Elsdon | 10/10 | 627 days | 39.71 | 40% | |
| Joanna du Toit | 9/10 | 658 days | 35.26 | 35% | |
| Nel Warnaar | 10/10 | 664 days | 34.44 | 34% | |
| Nigel Chapman | 10/10 | 688 days | 31.25 | 31% | |
| Craig Cini | 10/10 | 753 days | 23.53 | 23% | |
| Daniel Unkel | 10/10 | 802 days | 18.6 | 18% | |
| Eric Adelman | 10/10 | 849 days | 14.59 | 14% | |
| Jo Clarke | 8/10 | 890 days | 11.08 | 11% | |
| Jason Morehouse | 10/10 | 933 days | 9.16 | 9% | |
| Alan Brown | 5/10 | 962 days | 6.32 | 6% | |
| Matthias Wohlgemuth | 7/10 | 976 days | 6.59 | 6% | |
| Leilani Lemusu-Read | 10/10 | 992 days | 6.68 | 6% | |
| Kathrin Weigl | 10/10 | 1010 days | 6.14 | 6% | |
| Yachar Tajamady | 10/10 | 1051 days | 5.31 | 5% | |
| Tina Brill | 10/10 | 1084 days | 5.02 | 5% | |
| Robert Ciarrocchi | 10/10 | 1152 days | 4.9 | 5% | |
| Courtney | 10/10 | 1177 days | 4.86 | 5% | |
| Cullen Wiginton | 10/10 | 1219 days | 4.79 | 5% | |
| Alan Honey | 9/10 | 1249 days | 4.74 | 5% | |
| Shaun Burns | 10/10 | 1257 days | 4.72 | 4% | |
| Etienne Boeziek | 10/10 | 1261 days | 4.72 | 4% | |
| Julia Clark | 9/10 | 1285 days | 4.67 | 4% | |
| Sandra Kruse | 10/10 | 1287 days | 4.67 | 4% | |
| Victoria Lee | 10/10 | 1367 days | 4.53 | 4% | |
| Max Brunner | 10/10 | 1382 days | 4.51 | 4% | |
| Hanna from Germany | 10/10 | 1394 days | 4.49 | 4% | |
| Sarah Gurney | 10/10 | 1419 days | 4.45 | 4% | |
| Ron Web | 10/10 | 1419 days | 4.45 | 4% | |
| Claudius How | 10/10 | 1420 days | 4.44 | 4% | |
| Jayne Lewis | 10/10 | 1420 days | 4.44 | 4% | |
| Jade Duncan | 10/10 | 1438 days | 4.41 | 4% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 1449 days | 4.39 | 4% | |
| Megan | 10/10 | 1480 days | 4.34 | 4% | |
| Nicolas Justin | 10/10 | 1655 days | |
4.04 | 4% |
| Julia | 10/10 | 1664 days | 4.03 | 4% | |
| John Wray | 10/10 | 1692 days | 3.98 | 4% | |
| Constantin D | 10/10 | 1705 days | 3.96 | 4% | |
| Jonathan Arndt | 10/10 | 1706 days | 3.95 | 4% | |
| Virpi Andersson | 10/10 | 1723 days | 3.92 | 4% | |
| Dieter Schmees | 9/10 | 1736 days | |
3.9 | 4% |
| Manuela | 10/10 | 1751 days | |
3.88 | 4% |
| Dieter & Lydia Schmees | 9/10 | 1754 days | 3.87 | 4% | |
| Bert Snel | 10/10 | 1754 days | 3.87 | 4% | |
| oren schnabel | 10/10 | 1754 days | 3.87 | 4% | |
| SUE COLEMAN | 9/10 | 1754 days | 3.87 | 4% | |
| Astrid Egesten | 9/10 | 1762 days | |
3.86 | 4% |
| Gianpiero Rodari | 9/10 | 1784 days | 3.82 | 4% | |
| sahni | 9/10 | 1969 days | 3.5 | 3% | |
| Jan Legein | 10/10 | 2007 days | |
3.44 | 3% |
| Josefin Lind | 9/10 | 2009 days | |
3.43 | 3% |
| Herman Holmgist | 9/10 | 2009 days | |
3.43 | 3% |
| Leeann Newton | 9/10 | 2056 days | |
3.35 | 3% |
| Andrew Young | 10/10 | 2058 days | 3.35 | 3% | |
| GN100 | 9/10 | 2058 days | 3.35 | 3% | |
| Michael Turek | 10/10 | 2089 days | 3.3 | 3% | |
| Linda Morey | 10/10 | 2089 days | 3.3 | 3% | |
| Eric and Nienke | 8/10 | 2120 days | 3.08 | 3% | |
| Julian Kemp | 10/10 | 2150 days | 3.19 | 3% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 2181 days | 3.14 | 3% | |
| PaulMacca | 10/10 | 2273 days | 2.98 | 3% | |
| AoP | 10/10 | 2395 days | 2.77 | 3% | |
| Penny Compton | 10/10 | 2395 days | 2.77 | 3% | |
| Julian Roots | 8/10 | 2395 days | 2.64 | 2% | |
| Helen and Ogi | 10/10 | 2408 days | |
2.75 | 3% |
| Lis Bon | 10/10 | 2423 days | 2.73 | 2% | |
| Pahlfamily | 10/10 | 2454 days | 2.67 | 2% | |
| Joroen Borkert | 9/10 | 2472 days | |
2.64 | 2% |
| Johannes OBerlin | 10/10 | 2757 days | |
2.15 | 2% |
| Shavill | 10/10 | 2760 days | 2.15 | 2% | |
| Michael Stoll | 10/10 | 2770 days | |
2.13 | 2% |
| E Smudde | 8/10 | 2773 days | |
2.02 | 2% |
| RhysWendy | 10/10 | 2820 days | 2.05 | 2% | |
| Ken Jones | 9/10 | 3101 days | |
1.57 | 1% |
| Steve Waterhouse | 8/10 | 3111 days | |
1.47 | 1% |
| Jan Visser | 8/10 | 3126 days | |
1.45 | 1% |
| Victoria Purver | 10/10 | 3129 days | |
1.52 | 1% |
| Andrew Koster | 9/10 | 3139 days | |
1.5 | 1% |
| Emma Edis-Bates | 9/10 | 3142 days | |
1.49 | 1% |
| rhubarbsky | 10/10 | 3216 days | 1.37 | 1% | |
| krisevelyn | 9/10 | 3430 days | |
1.0 | 1% |
| Caitriona Doyle | 10/10 | 3513 days | |
0.86 | 1% |
| Hanz | 10/10 | 3515 days | |
0.86 | 1% |
| Linley Faulkner | 10/10 | 3519 days | 0.85 | 1% | |
| EA Anders | 10/10 | 3536 days | |
0.82 | 1% |
| Family van Hessem | 8/10 | 3539 days | |
0.77 | 1% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3589 days | |
0.73 | 0% |
| Jessica Clarisse | 10/10 | 3593 days | |
0.72 | 0% |
| Christine Suess | 10/10 | 3593 days | |
0.72 | 0% |
| LindaV | 8/10 | 3859 days | |
0.25 | 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 Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.38% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if an experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 60 days. However the Smiths Farm Holiday Park 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 199 days.
The Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 19 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 16 | -0.32% |
| 17 | -0.34% |
| 18 | -0.36% |
| 19 | -0.38% |
| 20 | -0.40% |
| 21 | -0.42% |
| 22 | -0.44% |
| … | … |
Final Ranking Score
96%
The final ranking score once adjustments and rounding has been applied. This value is cached and recalculated each day. Therefore it may not be precisely accurate based on the other values presented.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at info@rankers.co.nz.