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.
Nick Morrison
Rankers owner
Smiths Farm Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
107 Valid Reviews
The Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has a total of 109 reviews. There are 107 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 2 invalid reviews 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 107 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 72 |
|
67% |
| 9/10 | 25 |
|
23% |
| 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% |
95.42% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Smiths Farm Holiday Park valid reviews is 95.42% and is based on 107 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 107 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
95.82%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maeike | 9/10 | 50 days | 99.6 | 100% | |
| Maika Laura | 10/10 | 50 days | 99.6 | 100% | |
| Axel & Sabine | 10/10 | 50 days | 99.6 | 100% | |
| Michael | 10/10 | 78 days | 99.04 | 99% | |
| Simone Maccagnan | 10/10 | 109 days | 98.12 | 98% | |
| Beate | 9/10 | 109 days | 98.12 | 98% | |
| Jonas and Lottie | 10/10 | 140 days | 96.89 | 97% | |
| Anita | 9/10 | 140 days | 96.89 | 97% | |
| Lance | 10/10 | 170 days | 95.42 | 96% | |
| Julia Thompson | 10/10 | 170 days | 95.42 | 96% | |
| Brett See | 10/10 | 201 days | 93.6 | 94% | |
| Grizzly Girl | 9/10 | 201 days | 93.6 | 94% | |
| kael Matthews | 9/10 | 201 days | 93.6 | 94% | |
| Kimberly | 10/10 | 231 days | 91.54 | 92% | |
| Jenna webber | 9/10 | 231 days | 91.54 | 92% | |
| Karina | 10/10 | 415 days | 72.71 | 73% | |
| Alde | 10/10 | 415 days | 72.71 | 73% | |
| The Weathersons | 9/10 | 428 days |  |
85.17 | 85% |
| Tina Elsdon | 10/10 | 474 days | 64.4 | 64% | |
| Joanna du Toit | 9/10 | 505 days | 59.59 | 59% | |
| Nel Warnaar | 10/10 | 510 days | 58.78 | 58% | |
| Nigel Chapman | 10/10 | 534 days | 54.81 | 54% | |
| Craig Cini | 10/10 | 599 days | 43.98 | 43% | |
| Daniel Unkel | 10/10 | 648 days | 36.66 | 36% | |
| Eric Adelman | 10/10 | 695 days | 30.35 | 29% | |
| Jo Clarke | 8/10 | 736 days | 25.42 | 24% | |
| Jason Morehouse | 10/10 | 780 days | 20.72 | 19% | |
| Alan Brown | 5/10 | 808 days | 18.05 | 17% | |
| Matthias Wohlgemuth | 7/10 | 822 days | 16.81 | 15% | |
| Leilani Lemusu-Read | 10/10 | 839 days | 15.39 | 14% | |
| Kathrin Weigl | 10/10 | 856 days | 14.05 | 13% | |
| Yachar Tajamady | 10/10 | 897 days | 11.21 | 10% | |
| Tina Brill | 10/10 | 931 days | 9.26 | 8% | |
| Robert Ciarrocchi | 10/10 | 998 days | 6.49 | 5% | |
| Courtney | 10/10 | 1023 days | 5.82 | 4% | |
| Cullen Wiginton | 10/10 | 1065 days | 5.14 | 4% | |
| Alan Honey | 9/10 | 1095 days | 5.0 | 3% | |
| Shaun Burns | 10/10 | 1103 days | 4.99 | 3% | |
| Etienne Boeziek | 10/10 | 1107 days | 4.98 | 3% | |
| Julia Clark | 9/10 | 1131 days | 4.95 | 3% | |
| Sandra Kruse | 10/10 | 1133 days | 4.95 | 3% | |
| Victoria Lee | 10/10 | 1213 days | 4.84 | 3% | |
| Max Brunner | 10/10 | 1228 days | 4.82 | 3% | |
| Hanna from Germany | 10/10 | 1240 days | 4.8 | 3% | |
| Sarah Gurney | 10/10 | 1265 days | 4.77 | 3% | |
| Ron Web | 10/10 | 1266 days | 4.77 | 3% | |
| Claudius How | 10/10 | 1266 days | 4.77 | 3% | |
| Jayne Lewis | 10/10 | 1266 days | 4.77 | 3% | |
| Jade Duncan | 10/10 | 1284 days | 4.74 | 3% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 1295 days | 4.73 | 3% | |
| Megan | 10/10 | 1327 days | 4.68 | 3% | |
| Nicolas Justin | 10/10 | 1501 days | |
5.33 | 4% |
| Julia | 10/10 | 1511 days | 4.43 | 3% | |
| John Wray | 10/10 | 1539 days | 4.39 | 3% | |
| Constantin D | 10/10 | 1551 days | 4.38 | 3% | |
| Jonathan Arndt | 10/10 | 1552 days | 4.37 | 3% | |
| Virpi Andersson | 10/10 | 1570 days | 4.35 | 3% | |
| Dieter Schmees | 9/10 | 1582 days | |
5.2 | 4% |
| Manuela | 10/10 | 1597 days | |
5.17 | 4% |
| Dieter & Lydia Schmees | 9/10 | 1601 days | 4.31 | 3% | |
| Bert Snel | 10/10 | 1601 days | 4.31 | 3% | |
| oren schnabel | 10/10 | 1601 days | 4.31 | 3% | |
| SUE COLEMAN | 9/10 | 1601 days | 4.31 | 3% | |
| Astrid Egesten | 9/10 | 1608 days | |
5.16 | 4% |
| Gianpiero Rodari | 9/10 | 1631 days | 4.27 | 3% | |
| sahni | 9/10 | 1815 days | 4.01 | 2% | |
| Jan Legein | 10/10 | 1853 days | |
4.75 | 3% |
| Josefin Lind | 9/10 | 1855 days | |
4.75 | 3% |
| Herman Holmgist | 9/10 | 1855 days | |
4.75 | 3% |
| Leeann Newton | 9/10 | 1902 days | |
4.67 | 3% |
| Andrew Young | 10/10 | 1904 days | 3.89 | 2% | |
| GN100 | 9/10 | 1904 days | 3.89 | 2% | |
| Michael Turek | 10/10 | 1935 days | 3.85 | 2% | |
| Linda Morey | 10/10 | 1935 days | 3.85 | 2% | |
| Eric and Nienke | 8/10 | 1966 days | 3.81 | 2% | |
| Julian Kemp | 10/10 | 1996 days | 3.77 | 2% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 2027 days | 3.72 | 2% | |
| PaulMacca | 10/10 | 2119 days | 3.6 | 2% | |
| AoP | 10/10 | 2241 days | 3.43 | 2% | |
| Penny Compton | 10/10 | 2241 days | 3.43 | 2% | |
| Julian Roots | 8/10 | 2241 days | 3.43 | 2% | |
| Helen and Ogi | 10/10 | 2254 days | |
4.09 | 2% |
| Lis Bon | 10/10 | 2269 days | 3.39 | 2% | |
| Pahlfamily | 10/10 | 2300 days | 3.35 | 2% | |
| Joroen Borkert | 9/10 | 2318 days | |
3.99 | 2% |
| Johannes OBerlin | 10/10 | 2603 days | |
3.52 | 2% |
| Shavill | 10/10 | 2606 days | 2.93 | 1% | |
| Michael Stoll | 10/10 | 2616 days | |
3.5 | 2% |
| E Smudde | 8/10 | 2619 days | |
3.49 | 2% |
| RhysWendy | 10/10 | 2666 days | 2.85 | 1% | |
| Ken Jones | 9/10 | 2947 days | |
2.96 | 1% |
| Steve Waterhouse | 8/10 | 2957 days | |
2.94 | 1% |
| Jan Visser | 8/10 | 2972 days | |
2.91 | 1% |
| Victoria Purver | 10/10 | 2975 days | |
2.91 | 1% |
| Andrew Koster | 9/10 | 2985 days | |
2.89 | 1% |
| Emma Edis-Bates | 9/10 | 2988 days | |
2.89 | 1% |
| rhubarbsky | 10/10 | 3062 days | 2.31 | 1% | |
| krisevelyn | 9/10 | 3276 days | |
2.41 | 1% |
| Caitriona Doyle | 10/10 | 3359 days | |
2.28 | 1% |
| Hanz | 10/10 | 3361 days | |
2.28 | 1% |
| Linley Faulkner | 10/10 | 3365 days | 1.89 | 0% | |
| EA Anders | 10/10 | 3382 days | |
2.24 | 1% |
| Family van Hessem | 8/10 | 3385 days | |
2.24 | 1% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3435 days | |
2.15 | 0% |
| Jessica Clarisse | 10/10 | 3439 days | |
2.15 | 0% |
| Christine Suess | 10/10 | 3439 days | |
2.15 | 0% |
| LindaV | 8/10 | 3705 days | |
1.71 | 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
-0.50% 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 364 days.
The Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 25 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 22 | -0.44% |
| 23 | -0.46% |
| 24 | -0.48% |
| 25 | -0.50% |
| 26 | -0.52% |
| 27 | -0.54% |
| 28 | -0.56% |
| … | … |
Final Ranking Score
95%
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.