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
113 Valid Reviews
The Smiths Farm Holiday Park experience has a total of 114 reviews. There are 113 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 113 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 77 |
|
68% |
| 9/10 | 26 |
|
23% |
| 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% |
95.58% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Smiths Farm Holiday Park valid reviews is 95.58% and is based on 113 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 113 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
96.75%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Callum Mann | 10/10 | 45 days | 99.68 | 100% | |
| Martin Hansen | 10/10 | 45 days | 99.68 | 100% | |
| angelika19 | 10/10 | 45 days | 99.68 | 100% | |
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 106 days | 98.22 | 99% | |
| Anonymous | 10/10 | 137 days | 97.03 | 97% | |
| Nia | 9/10 | 228 days | 91.76 | 92% | |
| Maeike | 9/10 | 259 days | 89.37 | 90% | |
| Maika Laura | 10/10 | 259 days | 89.37 | 90% | |
| Axel & Sabine | 10/10 | 259 days | 89.37 | 90% | |
| Michael | 10/10 | 287 days | 86.95 | 87% | |
| Simone Maccagnan | 10/10 | 318 days | 83.98 | 84% | |
| Beate | 9/10 | 318 days | 83.98 | 84% | |
| Jonas and Lottie | 10/10 | 349 days | 80.7 | 81% | |
| Anita | 9/10 | 349 days | 80.7 | 81% | |
| Lance | 10/10 | 379 days | 77.24 | 77% | |
| Julia Thompson | 10/10 | 379 days | 77.24 | 77% | |
| Brett See | 10/10 | 410 days | 73.36 | 74% | |
| Grizzly Girl | 9/10 | 410 days | 73.36 | 74% | |
| kael Matthews | 9/10 | 410 days | 73.36 | 74% | |
| Kimberly | 10/10 | 440 days | 69.32 | 70% | |
| Jenna webber | 9/10 | 440 days | 69.32 | 70% | |
| Karina | 10/10 | 624 days | 40.15 | 40% | |
| Alde | 10/10 | 624 days | 40.15 | 40% | |
| The Weathersons | 9/10 | 637 days |  |
38.24 | 38% |
| Tina Elsdon | 10/10 | 683 days | 31.9 | 32% | |
| Joanna du Toit | 9/10 | 714 days | 28.0 | 28% | |
| Nel Warnaar | 10/10 | 719 days | 27.4 | 27% | |
| Nigel Chapman | 10/10 | 743 days | 24.63 | 25% | |
| Craig Cini | 10/10 | 808 days | 18.05 | 18% | |
| Daniel Unkel | 10/10 | 857 days | 13.98 | 14% | |
| Eric Adelman | 10/10 | 904 days | 10.78 | 11% | |
| Jo Clarke | 8/10 | 945 days | 8.14 | 8% | |
| Jason Morehouse | 10/10 | 989 days | 6.78 | 7% | |
| Alan Brown | 5/10 | 1017 days | 4.83 | 5% | |
| Matthias Wohlgemuth | 7/10 | 1031 days | 5.14 | 5% | |
| Leilani Lemusu-Read | 10/10 | 1048 days | 5.35 | 5% | |
| Kathrin Weigl | 10/10 | 1065 days | 5.14 | 5% | |
| Yachar Tajamady | 10/10 | 1106 days | 4.98 | 5% | |
| Tina Brill | 10/10 | 1140 days | 4.91 | 5% | |
| Robert Ciarrocchi | 10/10 | 1207 days | 4.78 | 5% | |
| Courtney | 10/10 | 1232 days | 4.73 | 5% | |
| Cullen Wiginton | 10/10 | 1274 days | 4.65 | 5% | |
| Alan Honey | 9/10 | 1304 days | 4.59 | 5% | |
| Shaun Burns | 10/10 | 1312 days | 4.58 | 5% | |
| Etienne Boeziek | 10/10 | 1316 days | 4.57 | 5% | |
| Julia Clark | 9/10 | 1340 days | 4.52 | 5% | |
| Sandra Kruse | 10/10 | 1342 days | 4.52 | 5% | |
| Victoria Lee | 10/10 | 1422 days | 4.36 | 4% | |
| Max Brunner | 10/10 | 1437 days | 4.33 | 4% | |
| Hanna from Germany | 10/10 | 1449 days | 4.31 | 4% | |
| Sarah Gurney | 10/10 | 1474 days | 4.26 | 4% | |
| Ron Web | 10/10 | 1475 days | 4.26 | 4% | |
| Claudius How | 10/10 | 1475 days | 4.26 | 4% | |
| Jayne Lewis | 10/10 | 1475 days | 4.26 | 4% | |
| Jade Duncan | 10/10 | 1493 days | 4.22 | 4% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 1504 days | 4.2 | 4% | |
| Megan | 10/10 | 1536 days | 4.14 | 4% | |
| Nicolas Justin | 10/10 | 1710 days | |
3.8 | 4% |
| Julia | 10/10 | 1720 days | 3.78 | 4% | |
| John Wray | 10/10 | 1748 days | 3.72 | 4% | |
| Constantin D | 10/10 | 1760 days | 3.7 | 4% | |
| Jonathan Arndt | 10/10 | 1761 days | 3.7 | 4% | |
| Virpi Andersson | 10/10 | 1779 days | 3.66 | 4% | |
| Dieter Schmees | 9/10 | 1791 days | |
3.64 | 4% |
| Manuela | 10/10 | 1806 days | |
3.61 | 4% |
| Dieter & Lydia Schmees | 9/10 | 1810 days | 3.6 | 4% | |
| Bert Snel | 10/10 | 1810 days | 3.6 | 4% | |
| oren schnabel | 10/10 | 1810 days | 3.6 | 4% | |
| SUE COLEMAN | 9/10 | 1810 days | 3.6 | 4% | |
| Astrid Egesten | 9/10 | 1817 days | |
3.59 | 4% |
| Gianpiero Rodari | 9/10 | 1840 days | 3.54 | 4% | |
| sahni | 9/10 | 2024 days | 3.18 | 3% | |
| Jan Legein | 10/10 | 2062 days | |
3.11 | 3% |
| Josefin Lind | 9/10 | 2064 days | |
3.1 | 3% |
| Herman Holmgist | 9/10 | 2064 days | |
3.1 | 3% |
| Leeann Newton | 9/10 | 2111 days | |
3.01 | 3% |
| Andrew Young | 10/10 | 2113 days | 3.01 | 3% | |
| GN100 | 9/10 | 2113 days | 3.01 | 3% | |
| Michael Turek | 10/10 | 2144 days | 2.95 | 3% | |
| Linda Morey | 10/10 | 2144 days | 2.95 | 3% | |
| Eric and Nienke | 8/10 | 2175 days | 2.74 | 3% | |
| Julian Kemp | 10/10 | 2205 days | 2.83 | 3% | |
| Steve Warren | 10/10 | 2236 days | 2.77 | 3% | |
| PaulMacca | 10/10 | 2328 days | 2.59 | 3% | |
| AoP | 10/10 | 2450 days | 2.35 | 2% | |
| Penny Compton | 10/10 | 2450 days | 2.35 | 2% | |
| Julian Roots | 8/10 | 2450 days | 2.23 | 2% | |
| Helen and Ogi | 10/10 | 2463 days | |
2.32 | 2% |
| Lis Bon | 10/10 | 2478 days | 2.29 | 2% | |
| Pahlfamily | 10/10 | 2509 days | 2.23 | 2% | |
| Joroen Borkert | 9/10 | 2527 days | |
2.2 | 2% |
| Johannes OBerlin | 10/10 | 2812 days | |
1.64 | 2% |
| Shavill | 10/10 | 2815 days | 1.63 | 2% | |
| Michael Stoll | 10/10 | 2825 days | |
1.61 | 2% |
| E Smudde | 8/10 | 2828 days | |
1.53 | 2% |
| RhysWendy | 10/10 | 2875 days | 1.52 | 2% | |
| Ken Jones | 9/10 | 3156 days | |
0.97 | 1% |
| Steve Waterhouse | 8/10 | 3166 days | |
0.9 | 1% |
| Jan Visser | 8/10 | 3181 days | |
0.87 | 1% |
| Victoria Purver | 10/10 | 3184 days | |
0.91 | 1% |
| Andrew Koster | 9/10 | 3194 days | |
0.89 | 1% |
| Emma Edis-Bates | 9/10 | 3197 days | |
0.89 | 1% |
| rhubarbsky | 10/10 | 3271 days | 0.74 | 1% | |
| krisevelyn | 9/10 | 3485 days | |
0.32 | 0% |
| Caitriona Doyle | 10/10 | 3568 days | |
0.16 | 0% |
| Hanz | 10/10 | 3570 days | |
0.16 | 0% |
| Linley Faulkner | 10/10 | 3574 days | 0.15 | 0% | |
| EA Anders | 10/10 | 3591 days | |
0.12 | 0% |
| Family van Hessem | 8/10 | 3594 days | |
0.1 | 0% |
| Anna | 10/10 | 3644 days | |
0.01 | 0% |
| Jessica Clarisse | 10/10 | 3648 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| Christine Suess | 10/10 | 3648 days | |
0.0 | 0% |
| LindaV | 8/10 | 3914 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
-0.34% 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 17 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 14 | -0.28% |
| 15 | -0.30% |
| 16 | -0.32% |
| 17 | -0.34% |
| 18 | -0.36% |
| 19 | -0.38% |
| 20 | -0.40% |
| … | … |
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.