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
109 Valid Reviews
The Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has a total of 110 reviews. There are 109 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 109 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 73 |
|
67% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
24% |
| 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% |
95.41% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Smiths Farm Holiday Park valid reviews is 95.41% and is based on 109 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 109 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
95.87%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 21 days | 99.93 | 100% | |
| Nia | 9/10 | 112 days | 98.01 | 98% | |
| Maeike | 9/10 | 143 days | 96.76 | 97% | |
| Maika Laura | 10/10 | 143 days | 96.76 | 97% | |
| Axel & Sabine | 10/10 | 143 days | 96.76 | 97% | |
| Michael | 10/10 | 171 days | 95.37 | 95% | |
| Simone Maccagnan | 10/10 | 202 days | 93.53 | 93% | |
| Beate | 9/10 | 202 days | 93.53 | 93% | |
| Jonas and Lottie | 10/10 | 233 days | 91.4 | 91% | |
| Anita | 9/10 | 233 days | 91.4 | 91% | |
| Lance | 10/10 | 263 days | 89.04 | 89% | |
| Julia Thompson | 10/10 | 263 days | 89.04 | 89% | |
| Brett See | 10/10 | 294 days | 86.3 | 86% | |
| Grizzly Girl | 9/10 | 294 days | 86.3 | 86% | |
| kael Matthews | 9/10 | 294 days | 86.3 | 86% | |
| Kimberly | 10/10 | 324 days | 83.37 | 83% | |
| Jenna webber | 9/10 | 324 days | 83.37 | 83% | |
| Karina | 10/10 | 508 days | 59.11 | 59% | |
| Alde | 10/10 | 508 days | 59.11 | 59% | |
| The Weathersons | 9/10 | 521 days |  |
68.38 | 68% |
| Tina Elsdon | 10/10 | 566 days | 49.34 | 49% | |
| Joanna du Toit | 9/10 | 597 days | 44.3 | 43% | |
| Nel Warnaar | 10/10 | 603 days | 43.36 | 42% | |
| Nigel Chapman | 10/10 | 627 days | 39.71 | 39% | |
| Craig Cini | 10/10 | 692 days | 30.74 | 30% | |
| Daniel Unkel | 10/10 | 741 days | 24.86 | 24% | |
| Eric Adelman | 10/10 | 788 days | 19.93 | 19% | |
| Jo Clarke | 8/10 | 829 days | 16.21 | 15% | |
| Jason Morehouse | 10/10 | 872 days | 12.88 | 12% | |
| Alan Brown | 5/10 | 901 days | 10.96 | 10% | |
| Matthias Wohlgemuth | 7/10 | 915 days | 10.13 | 9% | |
| Leilani Lemusu-Read | 10/10 | 931 days | 9.26 | 8% | |
| Kathrin Weigl | 10/10 | 949 days | 8.38 | 7% | |
| Yachar Tajamady | 10/10 | 990 days | 6.75 | 5% | |
| Tina Brill | 10/10 | 1023 days | 5.82 | 4% | |
| Robert Ciarrocchi | 10/10 | 1091 days | 5.0 | 4% | |
| Courtney | 10/10 | 1116 days | 4.97 | 3% | |
| Cullen Wiginton | 10/10 | 1158 days | 4.91 | 3% | |
| Alan Honey | 9/10 | 1188 days | 4.87 | 3% | |
| Shaun Burns | 10/10 | 1196 days | 4.86 | 3% | |
| Etienne Boeziek | 10/10 | 1200 days | 4.86 | 3% | |
| Julia Clark | 9/10 | 1224 days | 4.82 | 3% | |
| Sandra Kruse | 10/10 | 1226 days | 4.82 | 3% | |
| Victoria Lee | 10/10 | 1306 days | 4.71 | 3% | |
| Max Brunner | 10/10 | 1321 days | 4.69 | 3% | |
| Hanna from Germany | 10/10 | 1333 days | 4.67 | 3% | |
| Sarah Gurney | 10/10 | 1358 days | 4.64 | 3% | |
| Ron Web | 10/10 | 1358 days | 4.64 | 3% | |
| Claudius How | 10/10 | 1359 days | 4.64 | 3% | |
| Jayne Lewis | 10/10 | 1359 days | 4.64 | 3% | |
| Jade Duncan | 10/10 | 1377 days | 4.61 | 3% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 1388 days | 4.6 | 3% | |
| Megan | 10/10 | 1419 days | 4.56 | 3% | |
| Nicolas Justin | 10/10 | 1594 days | |
5.18 | 4% |
| Julia | 10/10 | 1603 days | 4.3 | 3% | |
| John Wray | 10/10 | 1631 days | 4.27 | 3% | |
| Constantin D | 10/10 | 1644 days | 4.25 | 3% | |
| Jonathan Arndt | 10/10 | 1645 days | 4.25 | 3% | |
| Virpi Andersson | 10/10 | 1662 days | 4.22 | 3% | |
| Dieter Schmees | 9/10 | 1675 days | |
5.05 | 4% |
| Manuela | 10/10 | 1690 days | |
5.02 | 4% |
| Dieter & Lydia Schmees | 9/10 | 1693 days | 4.18 | 3% | |
| Bert Snel | 10/10 | 1693 days | 4.18 | 3% | |
| oren schnabel | 10/10 | 1693 days | 4.18 | 3% | |
| SUE COLEMAN | 9/10 | 1693 days | 4.18 | 3% | |
| Astrid Egesten | 9/10 | 1701 days | |
5.0 | 4% |
| Gianpiero Rodari | 9/10 | 1723 days | 4.14 | 3% | |
| sahni | 9/10 | 1908 days | 3.89 | 2% | |
| Jan Legein | 10/10 | 1946 days | |
4.6 | 3% |
| Josefin Lind | 9/10 | 1948 days | |
4.6 | 3% |
| Herman Holmgist | 9/10 | 1948 days | |
4.6 | 3% |
| Leeann Newton | 9/10 | 1995 days | |
4.52 | 3% |
| Andrew Young | 10/10 | 1997 days | 3.76 | 2% | |
| GN100 | 9/10 | 1997 days | 3.76 | 2% | |
| Michael Turek | 10/10 | 2028 days | 3.72 | 2% | |
| Linda Morey | 10/10 | 2028 days | 3.72 | 2% | |
| Eric and Nienke | 8/10 | 2059 days | 3.68 | 2% | |
| Julian Kemp | 10/10 | 2089 days | 3.64 | 2% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 2120 days | 3.6 | 2% | |
| PaulMacca | 10/10 | 2212 days | 3.47 | 2% | |
| AoP | 10/10 | 2334 days | 3.3 | 2% | |
| Penny Compton | 10/10 | 2334 days | 3.3 | 2% | |
| Julian Roots | 8/10 | 2334 days | 3.3 | 2% | |
| Helen and Ogi | 10/10 | 2347 days | |
3.94 | 2% |
| Lis Bon | 10/10 | 2362 days | 3.26 | 2% | |
| Pahlfamily | 10/10 | 2393 days | 3.22 | 2% | |
| Joroen Borkert | 9/10 | 2411 days | |
3.84 | 2% |
| Johannes OBerlin | 10/10 | 2696 days | |
3.37 | 2% |
| Shavill | 10/10 | 2699 days | 2.8 | 1% | |
| Michael Stoll | 10/10 | 2709 days | |
3.35 | 2% |
| E Smudde | 8/10 | 2712 days | |
3.34 | 2% |
| RhysWendy | 10/10 | 2759 days | 2.72 | 1% | |
| Ken Jones | 9/10 | 3040 days | |
2.8 | 1% |
| Steve Waterhouse | 8/10 | 3050 days | |
2.79 | 1% |
| Jan Visser | 8/10 | 3065 days | |
2.76 | 1% |
| Victoria Purver | 10/10 | 3068 days | |
2.76 | 1% |
| Andrew Koster | 9/10 | 3078 days | |
2.74 | 1% |
| Emma Edis-Bates | 9/10 | 3081 days | |
2.74 | 1% |
| rhubarbsky | 10/10 | 3155 days | 2.18 | 1% | |
| krisevelyn | 9/10 | 3369 days | |
2.26 | 1% |
| Caitriona Doyle | 10/10 | 3452 days | |
2.13 | 1% |
| Hanz | 10/10 | 3454 days | |
2.12 | 1% |
| Linley Faulkner | 10/10 | 3458 days | 1.76 | 0% | |
| EA Anders | 10/10 | 3475 days | |
2.09 | 1% |
| Family van Hessem | 8/10 | 3478 days | |
2.08 | 1% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3528 days | |
2.0 | 0% |
| Jessica Clarisse | 10/10 | 3532 days | |
1.99 | 0% |
| Christine Suess | 10/10 | 3532 days | |
1.99 | 0% |
| LindaV | 8/10 | 3798 days | |
1.56 | 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
-0.14% 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 7 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 4 | -0.08% |
| 5 | -0.10% |
| 6 | -0.12% |
| 7 | -0.14% |
| 8 | -0.16% |
| 9 | -0.18% |
| 10 | -0.20% |
| … | … |
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.