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
121 Valid Reviews
The Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has a total of 122 reviews. There are 121 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 121 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 83 |
|
69% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
21% |
| 8/10 | 10 |
|
8% |
| 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% |
95.54% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Smiths Farm Holiday Park valid reviews is 95.54% and is based on 121 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 121 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
96.37%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zuzana and family | 10/10 | 31 days | 99.85 | 100% | |
| Just a guy | 10/10 | 31 days | 99.85 | 100% | |
| Liz Wade | 8/10 | 59 days | 94.48 | 95% | |
| Tom S | 10/10 | 91 days | 98.69 | 99% | |
| Erica | 8/10 | 91 days | 93.75 | 94% | |
| Dieter Giesen | 10/10 | 91 days | 98.69 | 99% | |
| Robert | 10/10 | 122 days | 97.64 | 98% | |
| Chris | 10/10 | 122 days | 97.64 | 98% | |
| Callum Mann | 10/10 | 183 days | 94.69 | 95% | |
| Martin Hansen | 10/10 | 183 days | 94.69 | 95% | |
| angelika19 | 10/10 | 183 days | 94.69 | 95% | |
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 244 days | 90.57 | 91% | |
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 275 days | 88.02 | 88% | |
| Nia | 9/10 | 366 days | 78.77 | 79% | |
| Maeike | 9/10 | 397 days | 75.02 | 75% | |
| Maika Laura | 10/10 | 397 days | 75.02 | 75% | |
| Axel & Sabine | 10/10 | 397 days | 75.02 | 75% | |
| Michael | 10/10 | 425 days | 71.38 | 71% | |
| Simone Maccagnan | 10/10 | 456 days | 67.05 | 67% | |
| Beate | 9/10 | 456 days | 67.05 | 67% | |
| Jonas and Lottie | 10/10 | 487 days | 62.42 | 63% | |
| Anita | 9/10 | 487 days | 62.42 | 63% | |
| Lance | 10/10 | 517 days | 57.64 | 58% | |
| Julia Thompson | 10/10 | 517 days | 57.64 | 58% | |
| Brett See | 10/10 | 548 days | 52.41 | 52% | |
| Grizzly Girl | 9/10 | 548 days | 52.41 | 52% | |
| kael Matthews | 9/10 | 548 days | 52.41 | 52% | |
| Kimberly | 10/10 | 578 days | 47.36 | 47% | |
| Jenna webber | 9/10 | 578 days | 47.36 | 47% | |
| Karina | 10/10 | 762 days | 22.57 | 23% | |
| Alde | 10/10 | 762 days | 22.57 | 23% | |
| The Weathersons | 9/10 | 775 days |  |
21.23 | 21% |
| Tina Elsdon | 10/10 | 820 days | 16.98 | 17% | |
| Joanna du Toit | 9/10 | 851 days | 14.43 | 14% | |
| Nel Warnaar | 10/10 | 857 days | 13.98 | 14% | |
| Nigel Chapman | 10/10 | 881 days | 12.26 | 12% | |
| Craig Cini | 10/10 | 946 days | 8.52 | 9% | |
| Daniel Unkel | 10/10 | 995 days | 6.58 | 7% | |
| Eric Adelman | 10/10 | 1042 days | 5.45 | 5% | |
| Jo Clarke | 8/10 | 1083 days | 4.77 | 5% | |
| Jason Morehouse | 10/10 | 1126 days | 4.94 | 5% | |
| Alan Brown | 5/10 | 1155 days | 3.95 | 4% | |
| Matthias Wohlgemuth | 7/10 | 1169 days | 4.42 | 4% | |
| Leilani Lemusu-Read | 10/10 | 1185 days | 4.82 | 5% | |
| Kathrin Weigl | 10/10 | 1203 days | 4.79 | 5% | |
| Yachar Tajamady | 10/10 | 1244 days | 4.71 | 5% | |
| Tina Brill | 10/10 | 1277 days | 4.64 | 5% | |
| Robert Ciarrocchi | 10/10 | 1345 days | 4.51 | 5% | |
| Courtney | 10/10 | 1370 days | 4.46 | 4% | |
| Cullen Wiginton | 10/10 | 1412 days | 4.38 | 4% | |
| Alan Honey | 9/10 | 1442 days | 4.32 | 4% | |
| Shaun Burns | 10/10 | 1450 days | 4.31 | 4% | |
| Etienne Boeziek | 10/10 | 1454 days | 4.3 | 4% | |
| Julia Clark | 9/10 | 1478 days | 4.25 | 4% | |
| Sandra Kruse | 10/10 | 1480 days | 4.25 | 4% | |
| Victoria Lee | 10/10 | 1560 days | 4.09 | 4% | |
| Max Brunner | 10/10 | 1575 days | 4.06 | 4% | |
| Hanna from Germany | 10/10 | 1587 days | 4.04 | 4% | |
| Sarah Gurney | 10/10 | 1612 days | 3.99 | 4% | |
| Ron Web | 10/10 | 1612 days | 3.99 | 4% | |
| Claudius How | 10/10 | 1613 days | 3.99 | 4% | |
| Jayne Lewis | 10/10 | 1613 days | 3.99 | 4% | |
| Jade Duncan | 10/10 | 1631 days | 3.95 | 4% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 1642 days | 3.93 | 4% | |
| Megan | 10/10 | 1673 days | 3.87 | 4% | |
| Nicolas Justin | 10/10 | 1848 days | |
3.53 | 4% |
| Julia | 10/10 | 1857 days | 3.51 | 4% | |
| John Wray | 10/10 | 1885 days | 3.45 | 3% | |
| Constantin D | 10/10 | 1898 days | 3.43 | 3% | |
| Jonathan Arndt | 10/10 | 1899 days | 3.43 | 3% | |
| Virpi Andersson | 10/10 | 1916 days | 3.39 | 3% | |
| Dieter Schmees | 9/10 | 1929 days | |
3.37 | 3% |
| Manuela | 10/10 | 1944 days | |
3.34 | 3% |
| Dieter & Lydia Schmees | 9/10 | 1947 days | 3.33 | 3% | |
| Bert Snel | 10/10 | 1947 days | 3.33 | 3% | |
| oren schnabel | 10/10 | 1947 days | 3.33 | 3% | |
| SUE COLEMAN | 9/10 | 1947 days | 3.33 | 3% | |
| Astrid Egesten | 9/10 | 1955 days | |
3.32 | 3% |
| Gianpiero Rodari | 9/10 | 1977 days | 3.27 | 3% | |
| sahni | 9/10 | 2162 days | 2.91 | 3% | |
| Jan Legein | 10/10 | 2200 days | |
2.84 | 3% |
| Josefin Lind | 9/10 | 2202 days | |
2.83 | 3% |
| Herman Holmgist | 9/10 | 2202 days | |
2.83 | 3% |
| Leeann Newton | 9/10 | 2249 days | |
2.74 | 3% |
| Andrew Young | 10/10 | 2251 days | 2.74 | 3% | |
| GN100 | 9/10 | 2251 days | 2.74 | 3% | |
| Michael Turek | 10/10 | 2282 days | 2.68 | 3% | |
| Linda Morey | 10/10 | 2282 days | 2.68 | 3% | |
| Eric and Nienke | 8/10 | 2313 days | 2.49 | 2% | |
| Julian Kemp | 10/10 | 2343 days | 2.56 | 3% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 2374 days | 2.5 | 3% | |
| PaulMacca | 10/10 | 2466 days | 2.32 | 2% | |
| AoP | 10/10 | 2588 days | 2.08 | 2% | |
| Penny Compton | 10/10 | 2588 days | 2.08 | 2% | |
| Julian Roots | 8/10 | 2588 days | 1.97 | 2% | |
| Helen and Ogi | 10/10 | 2601 days | |
2.05 | 2% |
| Lis Bon | 10/10 | 2616 days | 2.02 | 2% | |
| Pahlfamily | 10/10 | 2647 days | 1.96 | 2% | |
| Joroen Borkert | 9/10 | 2665 days | |
1.93 | 2% |
| Johannes OBerlin | 10/10 | 2950 days | |
1.37 | 1% |
| Shavill | 10/10 | 2953 days | 1.36 | 1% | |
| Michael Stoll | 10/10 | 2963 days | |
1.34 | 1% |
| E Smudde | 8/10 | 2966 days | |
1.27 | 1% |
| RhysWendy | 10/10 | 3013 days | 1.25 | 1% | |
| Ken Jones | 9/10 | 3294 days | |
0.7 | 1% |
| Steve Waterhouse | 8/10 | 3304 days | |
0.64 | 1% |
| Jan Visser | 8/10 | 3319 days | |
0.62 | 1% |
| Victoria Purver | 10/10 | 3322 days | |
0.64 | 1% |
| Andrew Koster | 9/10 | 3332 days | |
0.62 | 1% |
| Emma Edis-Bates | 9/10 | 3335 days | |
0.62 | 1% |
| rhubarbsky | 10/10 | 3409 days | 0.47 | 0% | |
| krisevelyn | 9/10 | 3623 days | |
0.05 | 0% |
| Caitriona Doyle | 10/10 | 3706 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Hanz | 10/10 | 3708 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Linley Faulkner | 10/10 | 3712 days | 0.0 | 0% | |
| EA Anders | 10/10 | 3729 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Family van Hessem | 8/10 | 3732 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3782 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Jessica Clarisse | 10/10 | 3786 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Christine Suess | 10/10 | 3786 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| LindaV | 8/10 | 4052 days | |
0.0 | 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
-0.04% 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 2 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 0 | -0.00% |
| 1 | -0.02% |
| 2 | -0.04% |
| 3 | -0.06% |
| 4 | -0.08% |
| 5 | -0.10% |
| … | … |
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.