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
118 Valid Reviews
The Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has a total of 119 reviews. There are 118 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 118 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 81 |
|
69% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
22% |
| 8/10 | 9 |
|
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% |
95.59% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Smiths Farm Holiday Park valid reviews is 95.59% and is based on 118 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 118 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
96.70%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tom S | 10/10 | 53 days | 99.55 | 100% | |
| Erica | 8/10 | 53 days | 94.58 | 95% | |
| Dieter Giesen | 10/10 | 53 days | 99.55 | 100% | |
| Robert | 10/10 | 84 days | 98.88 | 99% | |
| Chris | 10/10 | 84 days | 98.88 | 99% | |
| Callum Mann | 10/10 | 145 days | 96.67 | 97% | |
| Martin Hansen | 10/10 | 145 days | 96.67 | 97% | |
| angelika19 | 10/10 | 145 days | 96.67 | 97% | |
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 206 days | 93.28 | 94% | |
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 237 days | 91.1 | 92% | |
| Nia | 9/10 | 328 days | 82.95 | 83% | |
| Maeike | 9/10 | 359 days | 79.58 | 80% | |
| Maika Laura | 10/10 | 359 days | 79.58 | 80% | |
| Axel & Sabine | 10/10 | 359 days | 79.58 | 80% | |
| Michael | 10/10 | 387 days | 76.27 | 77% | |
| Simone Maccagnan | 10/10 | 418 days | 72.31 | 73% | |
| Beate | 9/10 | 418 days | 72.31 | 73% | |
| Jonas and Lottie | 10/10 | 449 days | 68.05 | 68% | |
| Anita | 9/10 | 449 days | 68.05 | 68% | |
| Lance | 10/10 | 479 days | 63.64 | 64% | |
| Julia Thompson | 10/10 | 479 days | 63.64 | 64% | |
| Brett See | 10/10 | 510 days | 58.78 | 59% | |
| Grizzly Girl | 9/10 | 510 days | 58.78 | 59% | |
| kael Matthews | 9/10 | 510 days | 58.78 | 59% | |
| Kimberly | 10/10 | 540 days | 53.79 | 54% | |
| Jenna webber | 9/10 | 540 days | 53.79 | 54% | |
| Karina | 10/10 | 724 days | 26.81 | 27% | |
| Alde | 10/10 | 724 days | 26.81 | 27% | |
| The Weathersons | 9/10 | 737 days |  |
25.31 | 25% |
| Tina Elsdon | 10/10 | 783 days | 20.43 | 21% | |
| Joanna du Toit | 9/10 | 814 days | 17.51 | 18% | |
| Nel Warnaar | 10/10 | 819 days | 17.07 | 17% | |
| Nigel Chapman | 10/10 | 843 days | 15.06 | 15% | |
| Craig Cini | 10/10 | 908 days | 10.54 | 11% | |
| Daniel Unkel | 10/10 | 957 days | 8.02 | 8% | |
| Eric Adelman | 10/10 | 1004 days | 6.31 | 6% | |
| Jo Clarke | 8/10 | 1045 days | 5.13 | 5% | |
| Jason Morehouse | 10/10 | 1089 days | 5.01 | 5% | |
| Alan Brown | 5/10 | 1117 days | 4.02 | 4% | |
| Matthias Wohlgemuth | 7/10 | 1131 days | 4.49 | 5% | |
| Leilani Lemusu-Read | 10/10 | 1148 days | 4.9 | 5% | |
| Kathrin Weigl | 10/10 | 1165 days | 4.86 | 5% | |
| Yachar Tajamady | 10/10 | 1206 days | 4.78 | 5% | |
| Tina Brill | 10/10 | 1240 days | 4.72 | 5% | |
| Robert Ciarrocchi | 10/10 | 1307 days | 4.59 | 5% | |
| Courtney | 10/10 | 1332 days | 4.54 | 5% | |
| Cullen Wiginton | 10/10 | 1374 days | 4.45 | 4% | |
| Alan Honey | 9/10 | 1404 days | 4.4 | 4% | |
| Shaun Burns | 10/10 | 1412 days | 4.38 | 4% | |
| Etienne Boeziek | 10/10 | 1416 days | 4.37 | 4% | |
| Julia Clark | 9/10 | 1440 days | 4.32 | 4% | |
| Sandra Kruse | 10/10 | 1442 days | 4.32 | 4% | |
| Victoria Lee | 10/10 | 1522 days | 4.16 | 4% | |
| Max Brunner | 10/10 | 1537 days | 4.14 | 4% | |
| Hanna from Germany | 10/10 | 1549 days | 4.11 | 4% | |
| Sarah Gurney | 10/10 | 1574 days | 4.06 | 4% | |
| Ron Web | 10/10 | 1575 days | 4.06 | 4% | |
| Claudius How | 10/10 | 1575 days | 4.06 | 4% | |
| Jayne Lewis | 10/10 | 1575 days | 4.06 | 4% | |
| Jade Duncan | 10/10 | 1593 days | 4.03 | 4% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 1604 days | 4.0 | 4% | |
| Megan | 10/10 | 1636 days | 3.94 | 4% | |
| Nicolas Justin | 10/10 | 1810 days | |
3.6 | 4% |
| Julia | 10/10 | 1820 days | 3.58 | 4% | |
| John Wray | 10/10 | 1848 days | 3.53 | 4% | |
| Constantin D | 10/10 | 1860 days | 3.5 | 4% | |
| Jonathan Arndt | 10/10 | 1861 days | 3.5 | 4% | |
| Virpi Andersson | 10/10 | 1879 days | 3.47 | 3% | |
| Dieter Schmees | 9/10 | 1891 days | |
3.44 | 3% |
| Manuela | 10/10 | 1906 days | |
3.41 | 3% |
| Dieter & Lydia Schmees | 9/10 | 1910 days | 3.41 | 3% | |
| Bert Snel | 10/10 | 1910 days | 3.41 | 3% | |
| oren schnabel | 10/10 | 1910 days | 3.41 | 3% | |
| SUE COLEMAN | 9/10 | 1910 days | 3.41 | 3% | |
| Astrid Egesten | 9/10 | 1917 days | |
3.39 | 3% |
| Gianpiero Rodari | 9/10 | 1940 days | 3.35 | 3% | |
| sahni | 9/10 | 2124 days | 2.99 | 3% | |
| Jan Legein | 10/10 | 2162 days | |
2.91 | 3% |
| Josefin Lind | 9/10 | 2164 days | |
2.91 | 3% |
| Herman Holmgist | 9/10 | 2164 days | |
2.91 | 3% |
| Leeann Newton | 9/10 | 2211 days | |
2.82 | 3% |
| Andrew Young | 10/10 | 2213 days | 2.81 | 3% | |
| GN100 | 9/10 | 2213 days | 2.81 | 3% | |
| Michael Turek | 10/10 | 2244 days | 2.75 | 3% | |
| Linda Morey | 10/10 | 2244 days | 2.75 | 3% | |
| Eric and Nienke | 8/10 | 2275 days | 2.56 | 3% | |
| Julian Kemp | 10/10 | 2305 days | 2.63 | 3% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 2336 days | 2.57 | 3% | |
| PaulMacca | 10/10 | 2428 days | 2.39 | 2% | |
| AoP | 10/10 | 2550 days | 2.15 | 2% | |
| Penny Compton | 10/10 | 2550 days | 2.15 | 2% | |
| Julian Roots | 8/10 | 2550 days | 2.05 | 2% | |
| Helen and Ogi | 10/10 | 2563 days | |
2.13 | 2% |
| Lis Bon | 10/10 | 2578 days | 2.1 | 2% | |
| Pahlfamily | 10/10 | 2609 days | 2.04 | 2% | |
| Joroen Borkert | 9/10 | 2627 days | |
2.0 | 2% |
| Johannes OBerlin | 10/10 | 2912 days | |
1.44 | 1% |
| Shavill | 10/10 | 2915 days | 1.44 | 1% | |
| Michael Stoll | 10/10 | 2925 days | |
1.42 | 1% |
| E Smudde | 8/10 | 2928 days | |
1.34 | 1% |
| RhysWendy | 10/10 | 2975 days | 1.32 | 1% | |
| Ken Jones | 9/10 | 3256 days | |
0.77 | 1% |
| Steve Waterhouse | 8/10 | 3266 days | |
0.71 | 1% |
| Jan Visser | 8/10 | 3281 days | |
0.69 | 1% |
| Victoria Purver | 10/10 | 3284 days | |
0.72 | 1% |
| Andrew Koster | 9/10 | 3294 days | |
0.7 | 1% |
| Emma Edis-Bates | 9/10 | 3297 days | |
0.69 | 1% |
| rhubarbsky | 10/10 | 3371 days | 0.55 | 1% | |
| krisevelyn | 9/10 | 3585 days | |
0.13 | 0% |
| Caitriona Doyle | 10/10 | 3668 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Hanz | 10/10 | 3670 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Linley Faulkner | 10/10 | 3674 days | 0.0 | 0% | |
| EA Anders | 10/10 | 3691 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Family van Hessem | 8/10 | 3694 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3744 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Jessica Clarisse | 10/10 | 3748 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Christine Suess | 10/10 | 3748 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| LindaV | 8/10 | 4014 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
-0.36% 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 18 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 15 | -0.30% |
| 16 | -0.32% |
| 17 | -0.34% |
| 18 | -0.36% |
| 19 | -0.38% |
| 20 | -0.40% |
| 21 | -0.42% |
| … | … |
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.