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 | 50 days | 99.6 | 100% | |
| Kay | 8/10 | 111 days | 93.15 | 94% | |
| Isabella S | 10/10 | 142 days | 96.8 | 97% | |
| Elin Pranter | 10/10 | 172 days | 95.31 | 96% | |
| Zuzana and family | 10/10 | 203 days | 93.47 | 94% | |
| Just a guy | 10/10 | 203 days | 93.47 | 94% | |
| Liz Wade | 8/10 | 232 days | 86.9 | 87% | |
| Tom S | 10/10 | 263 days | 89.04 | 89% | |
| Erica | 8/10 | 263 days | 84.59 | 85% | |
| Dieter Giesen | 10/10 | 263 days | 89.04 | 89% | |
| Robert | 10/10 | 294 days | 86.3 | 87% | |
| Chris | 10/10 | 294 days | 86.3 | 87% | |
| Callum Mann | 10/10 | 355 days | 80.03 | 80% | |
| Martin Hansen | 10/10 | 355 days | 80.03 | 80% | |
| angelika19 | 10/10 | 355 days | 80.03 | 80% | |
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 416 days | 72.58 | 73% | |
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 447 days | 68.34 | 69% | |
| Nia | 9/10 | 538 days | 54.13 | 54% | |
| Maeike | 9/10 | 569 days | 48.84 | 49% | |
| Maika Laura | 10/10 | 569 days | 48.84 | 49% | |
| Axel & Sabine | 10/10 | 569 days | 48.84 | 49% | |
| Michael | 10/10 | 597 days | 44.3 | 44% | |
| Simone Maccagnan | 10/10 | 628 days | 39.56 | 40% | |
| Beate | 9/10 | 628 days | 39.56 | 40% | |
| Jonas and Lottie | 10/10 | 659 days | 35.12 | 35% | |
| Anita | 9/10 | 659 days | 35.12 | 35% | |
| Lance | 10/10 | 689 days | 31.12 | 31% | |
| Julia Thompson | 10/10 | 689 days | 31.12 | 31% | |
| Brett See | 10/10 | 720 days | 27.28 | 27% | |
| Grizzly Girl | 9/10 | 720 days | 27.28 | 27% | |
| kael Matthews | 9/10 | 720 days | 27.28 | 27% | |
| Kimberly | 10/10 | 750 days | 23.86 | 24% | |
| Jenna webber | 9/10 | 750 days | 23.86 | 24% | |
| Karina | 10/10 | 934 days | 9.11 | 9% | |
| Alde | 10/10 | 934 days | 9.11 | 9% | |
| The Weathersons | 9/10 | 947 days |  |
8.47 | 9% |
| Tina Elsdon | 10/10 | 993 days | 6.65 | 7% | |
| Joanna du Toit | 9/10 | 1024 days | 5.8 | 6% | |
| Nel Warnaar | 10/10 | 1029 days | 5.69 | 6% | |
| Nigel Chapman | 10/10 | 1053 days | 5.28 | 5% | |
| Craig Cini | 10/10 | 1118 days | 4.95 | 5% | |
| Daniel Unkel | 10/10 | 1167 days | 4.86 | 5% | |
| Eric Adelman | 10/10 | 1214 days | 4.77 | 5% | |
| Jo Clarke | 8/10 | 1255 days | 4.45 | 4% | |
| Jason Morehouse | 10/10 | 1299 days | 4.6 | 5% | |
| Alan Brown | 5/10 | 1327 days | 3.68 | 4% | |
| Matthias Wohlgemuth | 7/10 | 1341 days | 4.11 | 4% | |
| Leilani Lemusu-Read | 10/10 | 1358 days | 4.49 | 5% | |
| Kathrin Weigl | 10/10 | 1375 days | 4.45 | 4% | |
| Yachar Tajamady | 10/10 | 1416 days | 4.37 | 4% | |
| Tina Brill | 10/10 | 1450 days | 4.31 | 4% | |
| Robert Ciarrocchi | 10/10 | 1517 days | 4.17 | 4% | |
| Courtney | 10/10 | 1542 days | 4.13 | 4% | |
| Cullen Wiginton | 10/10 | 1584 days | 4.04 | 4% | |
| Alan Honey | 9/10 | 1614 days | 3.98 | 4% | |
| Shaun Burns | 10/10 | 1622 days | 3.97 | 4% | |
| Etienne Boeziek | 10/10 | 1626 days | 3.96 | 4% | |
| Julia Clark | 9/10 | 1650 days | 3.91 | 4% | |
| Sandra Kruse | 10/10 | 1652 days | 3.91 | 4% | |
| Victoria Lee | 10/10 | 1732 days | 3.75 | 4% | |
| Max Brunner | 10/10 | 1747 days | 3.72 | 4% | |
| Hanna from Germany | 10/10 | 1759 days | 3.7 | 4% | |
| Sarah Gurney | 10/10 | 1784 days | 3.65 | 4% | |
| Ron Web | 10/10 | 1785 days | 3.65 | 4% | |
| Claudius How | 10/10 | 1785 days | 3.65 | 4% | |
| Jayne Lewis | 10/10 | 1785 days | 3.65 | 4% | |
| Jade Duncan | 10/10 | 1803 days | 3.61 | 4% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 1814 days | 3.59 | 4% | |
| Megan | 10/10 | 1846 days | 3.53 | 4% | |
| Nicolas Justin | 10/10 | 2020 days | |
3.19 | 3% |
| Julia | 10/10 | 2030 days | 3.17 | 3% | |
| John Wray | 10/10 | 2058 days | 3.12 | 3% | |
| Constantin D | 10/10 | 2070 days | 3.09 | 3% | |
| Jonathan Arndt | 10/10 | 2071 days | 3.09 | 3% | |
| Virpi Andersson | 10/10 | 2089 days | 3.05 | 3% | |
| Dieter Schmees | 9/10 | 2101 days | |
3.03 | 3% |
| Manuela | 10/10 | 2116 days | |
3.0 | 3% |
| Dieter & Lydia Schmees | 9/10 | 2120 days | 2.99 | 3% | |
| Bert Snel | 10/10 | 2120 days | 2.99 | 3% | |
| oren schnabel | 10/10 | 2120 days | 2.99 | 3% | |
| SUE COLEMAN | 9/10 | 2120 days | 2.99 | 3% | |
| Astrid Egesten | 9/10 | 2127 days | |
2.98 | 3% |
| Gianpiero Rodari | 9/10 | 2150 days | 2.94 | 3% | |
| sahni | 9/10 | 2334 days | 2.58 | 3% | |
| Jan Legein | 10/10 | 2372 days | |
2.5 | 3% |
| Josefin Lind | 9/10 | 2374 days | |
2.5 | 3% |
| Herman Holmgist | 9/10 | 2374 days | |
2.5 | 3% |
| Leeann Newton | 9/10 | 2421 days | |
2.41 | 2% |
| Andrew Young | 10/10 | 2423 days | 2.4 | 2% | |
| GN100 | 9/10 | 2423 days | 2.4 | 2% | |
| Michael Turek | 10/10 | 2454 days | 2.34 | 2% | |
| Linda Morey | 10/10 | 2454 days | 2.34 | 2% | |
| Eric and Nienke | 8/10 | 2485 days | 2.17 | 2% | |
| Julian Kemp | 10/10 | 2515 days | 2.22 | 2% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 2546 days | 2.16 | 2% | |
| PaulMacca | 10/10 | 2638 days | 1.98 | 2% | |
| AoP | 10/10 | 2760 days | 1.74 | 2% | |
| Penny Compton | 10/10 | 2760 days | 1.74 | 2% | |
| Julian Roots | 8/10 | 2760 days | 1.65 | 2% | |
| Helen and Ogi | 10/10 | 2773 days | |
1.72 | 2% |
| Lis Bon | 10/10 | 2788 days | 1.69 | 2% | |
| Pahlfamily | 10/10 | 2819 days | 1.63 | 2% | |
| Joroen Borkert | 9/10 | 2837 days | |
1.59 | 2% |
| Johannes OBerlin | 10/10 | 3122 days | |
1.03 | 1% |
| Shavill | 10/10 | 3125 days | 1.03 | 1% | |
| Michael Stoll | 10/10 | 3135 days | |
1.01 | 1% |
| E Smudde | 8/10 | 3138 days | |
0.95 | 1% |
| RhysWendy | 10/10 | 3185 days | 0.91 | 1% | |
| Ken Jones | 9/10 | 3466 days | |
0.36 | 0% |
| Steve Waterhouse | 8/10 | 3476 days | |
0.32 | 0% |
| Jan Visser | 8/10 | 3491 days | |
0.3 | 0% |
| Victoria Purver | 10/10 | 3494 days | |
0.31 | 0% |
| Andrew Koster | 9/10 | 3504 days | |
0.29 | 0% |
| Emma Edis-Bates | 9/10 | 3507 days | |
0.28 | 0% |
| rhubarbsky | 10/10 | 3581 days | 0.14 | 0% | |
| krisevelyn | 9/10 | 3795 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Caitriona Doyle | 10/10 | 3878 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Hanz | 10/10 | 3880 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Linley Faulkner | 10/10 | 3884 days | 0.0 | 0% | |
| EA Anders | 10/10 | 3901 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Family van Hessem | 8/10 | 3904 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3954 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Jessica Clarisse | 10/10 | 3958 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Christine Suess | 10/10 | 3958 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| LindaV | 8/10 | 4224 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
-0.23% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 74 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 15 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 12 | -0.18% |
| 13 | -0.20% |
| 14 | -0.21% |
| 15 | -0.23% |
| 16 | -0.24% |
| 17 | -0.26% |
| 18 | -0.27% |
| … | … |
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.