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
125 Valid Reviews
The Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has a total of 126 reviews. There are 125 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 125 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 86 |
|
69% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
21% |
| 8/10 | 11 |
|
9% |
| 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% |
95.52% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Smiths Farm Holiday Park valid reviews is 95.52% and is based on 125 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 125 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
96.17%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cloe | 10/10 | 56 days | 99.5 | 100% | |
| Kay | 8/10 | 117 days | 92.94 | 93% | |
| Isabella S | 10/10 | 148 days | 96.53 | 97% | |
| Elin Pranter | 10/10 | 178 days | 94.98 | 95% | |
| Zuzana and family | 10/10 | 209 days | 93.08 | 94% | |
| Just a guy | 10/10 | 209 days | 93.08 | 94% | |
| Liz Wade | 8/10 | 238 days | 86.47 | 87% | |
| Tom S | 10/10 | 269 days | 88.53 | 89% | |
| Erica | 8/10 | 269 days | 84.11 | 85% | |
| Dieter Giesen | 10/10 | 269 days | 88.53 | 89% | |
| Robert | 10/10 | 300 days | 85.74 | 86% | |
| Chris | 10/10 | 300 days | 85.74 | 86% | |
| Callum Mann | 10/10 | 361 days | 79.35 | 80% | |
| Martin Hansen | 10/10 | 361 days | 79.35 | 80% | |
| angelika19 | 10/10 | 361 days | 79.35 | 80% | |
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 422 days | 71.78 | 72% | |
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 453 days | 67.48 | 68% | |
| Nia | 9/10 | 544 days | 53.11 | 53% | |
| Maeike | 9/10 | 575 days | 47.85 | 48% | |
| Maika Laura | 10/10 | 575 days | 47.85 | 48% | |
| Axel & Sabine | 10/10 | 575 days | 47.85 | 48% | |
| Michael | 10/10 | 603 days | 43.36 | 44% | |
| Simone Maccagnan | 10/10 | 634 days | 38.68 | 39% | |
| Beate | 9/10 | 634 days | 38.68 | 39% | |
| Jonas and Lottie | 10/10 | 665 days | 34.3 | 34% | |
| Anita | 9/10 | 665 days | 34.3 | 34% | |
| Lance | 10/10 | 695 days | 30.35 | 31% | |
| Julia Thompson | 10/10 | 695 days | 30.35 | 31% | |
| Brett See | 10/10 | 726 days | 26.58 | 27% | |
| Grizzly Girl | 9/10 | 726 days | 26.58 | 27% | |
| kael Matthews | 9/10 | 726 days | 26.58 | 27% | |
| Kimberly | 10/10 | 756 days | 23.21 | 23% | |
| Jenna webber | 9/10 | 756 days | 23.21 | 23% | |
| Karina | 10/10 | 940 days | 8.81 | 9% | |
| Alde | 10/10 | 940 days | 8.81 | 9% | |
| The Weathersons | 9/10 | 953 days |  |
8.2 | 8% |
| Tina Elsdon | 10/10 | 999 days | 6.46 | 6% | |
| Joanna du Toit | 9/10 | 1030 days | 5.67 | 6% | |
| Nel Warnaar | 10/10 | 1035 days | 5.57 | 6% | |
| Nigel Chapman | 10/10 | 1059 days | 5.21 | 5% | |
| Craig Cini | 10/10 | 1124 days | 4.94 | 5% | |
| Daniel Unkel | 10/10 | 1173 days | 4.85 | 5% | |
| Eric Adelman | 10/10 | 1220 days | 4.76 | 5% | |
| Jo Clarke | 8/10 | 1261 days | 4.44 | 4% | |
| Jason Morehouse | 10/10 | 1305 days | 4.59 | 5% | |
| Alan Brown | 5/10 | 1333 days | 3.67 | 4% | |
| Matthias Wohlgemuth | 7/10 | 1347 days | 4.1 | 4% | |
| Leilani Lemusu-Read | 10/10 | 1364 days | 4.47 | 4% | |
| Kathrin Weigl | 10/10 | 1381 days | 4.44 | 4% | |
| Yachar Tajamady | 10/10 | 1422 days | 4.36 | 4% | |
| Tina Brill | 10/10 | 1456 days | 4.29 | 4% | |
| Robert Ciarrocchi | 10/10 | 1523 days | 4.16 | 4% | |
| Courtney | 10/10 | 1548 days | 4.11 | 4% | |
| Cullen Wiginton | 10/10 | 1590 days | 4.03 | 4% | |
| Alan Honey | 9/10 | 1620 days | 3.97 | 4% | |
| Shaun Burns | 10/10 | 1628 days | 3.96 | 4% | |
| Etienne Boeziek | 10/10 | 1632 days | 3.95 | 4% | |
| Julia Clark | 9/10 | 1656 days | 3.9 | 4% | |
| Sandra Kruse | 10/10 | 1658 days | 3.9 | 4% | |
| Victoria Lee | 10/10 | 1738 days | 3.74 | 4% | |
| Max Brunner | 10/10 | 1753 days | 3.71 | 4% | |
| Hanna from Germany | 10/10 | 1765 days | 3.69 | 4% | |
| Sarah Gurney | 10/10 | 1790 days | 3.64 | 4% | |
| Ron Web | 10/10 | 1791 days | 3.64 | 4% | |
| Claudius How | 10/10 | 1791 days | 3.64 | 4% | |
| Jayne Lewis | 10/10 | 1791 days | 3.64 | 4% | |
| Jade Duncan | 10/10 | 1809 days | 3.6 | 4% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 1820 days | 3.58 | 4% | |
| Megan | 10/10 | 1852 days | 3.52 | 4% | |
| Nicolas Justin | 10/10 | 2026 days | |
3.18 | 3% |
| Julia | 10/10 | 2036 days | 3.16 | 3% | |
| John Wray | 10/10 | 2064 days | 3.1 | 3% | |
| Constantin D | 10/10 | 2076 days | 3.08 | 3% | |
| Jonathan Arndt | 10/10 | 2077 days | 3.08 | 3% | |
| Virpi Andersson | 10/10 | 2095 days | 3.04 | 3% | |
| Dieter Schmees | 9/10 | 2107 days | |
3.02 | 3% |
| Manuela | 10/10 | 2122 days | |
2.99 | 3% |
| Dieter & Lydia Schmees | 9/10 | 2126 days | 2.98 | 3% | |
| Bert Snel | 10/10 | 2126 days | 2.98 | 3% | |
| oren schnabel | 10/10 | 2126 days | 2.98 | 3% | |
| SUE COLEMAN | 9/10 | 2126 days | 2.98 | 3% | |
| Astrid Egesten | 9/10 | 2133 days | |
2.97 | 3% |
| Gianpiero Rodari | 9/10 | 2156 days | 2.92 | 3% | |
| sahni | 9/10 | 2340 days | 2.56 | 3% | |
| Jan Legein | 10/10 | 2378 days | |
2.49 | 3% |
| Josefin Lind | 9/10 | 2380 days | |
2.49 | 2% |
| Herman Holmgist | 9/10 | 2380 days | |
2.49 | 2% |
| Leeann Newton | 9/10 | 2427 days | |
2.39 | 2% |
| Andrew Young | 10/10 | 2429 days | 2.39 | 2% | |
| GN100 | 9/10 | 2429 days | 2.39 | 2% | |
| Michael Turek | 10/10 | 2460 days | 2.33 | 2% | |
| Linda Morey | 10/10 | 2460 days | 2.33 | 2% | |
| Eric and Nienke | 8/10 | 2491 days | 2.15 | 2% | |
| Julian Kemp | 10/10 | 2521 days | 2.21 | 2% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 2552 days | 2.15 | 2% | |
| PaulMacca | 10/10 | 2644 days | 1.97 | 2% | |
| AoP | 10/10 | 2766 days | 1.73 | 2% | |
| Penny Compton | 10/10 | 2766 days | 1.73 | 2% | |
| Julian Roots | 8/10 | 2766 days | 1.64 | 2% | |
| Helen and Ogi | 10/10 | 2779 days | |
1.7 | 2% |
| Lis Bon | 10/10 | 2794 days | 1.68 | 2% | |
| Pahlfamily | 10/10 | 2825 days | 1.61 | 2% | |
| Joroen Borkert | 9/10 | 2843 days | |
1.58 | 2% |
| Johannes OBerlin | 10/10 | 3128 days | |
1.02 | 1% |
| Shavill | 10/10 | 3131 days | 1.02 | 1% | |
| Michael Stoll | 10/10 | 3141 days | |
1.0 | 1% |
| E Smudde | 8/10 | 3144 days | |
0.94 | 1% |
| RhysWendy | 10/10 | 3191 days | 0.9 | 1% | |
| Ken Jones | 9/10 | 3472 days | |
0.35 | 0% |
| Steve Waterhouse | 8/10 | 3482 days | |
0.31 | 0% |
| Jan Visser | 8/10 | 3497 days | |
0.28 | 0% |
| Victoria Purver | 10/10 | 3500 days | |
0.29 | 0% |
| Andrew Koster | 9/10 | 3510 days | |
0.27 | 0% |
| Emma Edis-Bates | 9/10 | 3513 days | |
0.27 | 0% |
| rhubarbsky | 10/10 | 3587 days | 0.12 | 0% | |
| krisevelyn | 9/10 | 3801 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Caitriona Doyle | 10/10 | 3884 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Hanz | 10/10 | 3886 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Linley Faulkner | 10/10 | 3890 days | 0.0 | 0% | |
| EA Anders | 10/10 | 3907 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Family van Hessem | 8/10 | 3910 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3960 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Jessica Clarisse | 10/10 | 3964 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Christine Suess | 10/10 | 3964 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| LindaV | 8/10 | 4230 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
-0.32% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 70 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 200 days. Due to the seasonal nature of many businesses, this adjustment is applied dynamically throughout the year.
The Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 20 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 17 | -0.27% |
| 18 | -0.29% |
| 19 | -0.30% |
| 20 | -0.32% |
| 21 | -0.33% |
| 22 | -0.35% |
| 23 | -0.37% |
| … | … |
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.