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 Riverside 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.

Nick Morrison's avatar

Nick Morrison

Rankers owner

Riverside Holiday Park

Valid Reviews

95 Valid Reviews

The Riverside Holiday Park experience has a total of 99 reviews. There are 95 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 4 invalid reviews 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 95 valid reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 42
44%
9/10 18
19%
8/10 13
14%
7/10 8
8%
6/10 4
4%
5/10 6
6%
4/10 0
0%
3/10 1
1%
2/10 0
0%
1/10 3
3%

84.42% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Riverside Holiday Park valid reviews is 84.42% and is based on 95 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

20 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 95 valid reviews, the experience has 20 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.

Below is the distribution of ratings for the 20 face-to-face reviews:

Rating Count Percentage
10/10 2
10%
9/10 0
0%
8/10 6
30%
7/10 3
15%
6/10 3
15%
5/10 3
15%
4/10 0
0%
3/10 1
5%
2/10 0
0%
1/10 2
10%

63.50% Average

The raw data average (mean) for all the Riverside Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 63.50% and is based on 20 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.

Weighted Average

91.16%

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
Phil Bennett 9/10 15 days 99.96 100%
Gaudenz Schnell 10/10 199 days 93.72 94%
Marie van Tol 9/10 227 days 91.83 92%
Beth 10/10 227 days 91.83 92%
Jeremy 9/10 258 days 89.45 89%
Jacqui 10/10 289 days 86.77 87%
Marco 9/10 319 days 83.87 84%
Ryan 10/10 350 days 80.59 81%
Grizzly Girl 10/10 350 days 80.59 81%
Lance 10/10 350 days 80.59 81%
Daphne H 9/10 380 days 77.12 77%
Cassie 9/10 380 days 77.12 77%
Esther 8/10 472 days 61.46 61%
Clovis C. 10/10 533 days 54.98 55%
Tom J. 9/10 564 days 49.68 50%
Anke 9/10 564 days 49.68 50%
S Weslake 9/10 564 days 49.68 50%
Tom Meulders 5/10 636 days 31.09 31%
Joe Trigg 5/10 686 days 25.52 25%
Gary Prescot 8/10 717 days 26.26 26%
Peter Suan 10/10 830 days 16.13 16%
Lotta Vuorjoki 10/10 861 days 13.68 13%
Janet Pentelow 7/10 890 days 10.61 10%
Julia Kurtz 8/10 899 days 10.53 10%
Tracey Leyston 10/10 939 days 8.86 9%
Kati Behrendt 9/10 947 days 8.47 8%
Tombeadle 10/10 957 days 8.02 8%
Peter Armstrong 6/10 957 days 6.65 6%
Erich Brueggermann 7/10 986 days 6.26 6%
Rebecca Lindsey 7/10 988 days 6.2 6%
Robert Hunt 8/10 1029 days 5.41 5%
Sheryl Hicks 8/10 1051 days 5.04 5%
Ivan Wee 10/10 1055 days 5.25 5%
Daphne H 9/10 1103 days 4.99 5%
Daniel Gold 10/10 1202 days 4.82 5%
william Sinclair 10/10 1202 days 4.82 5%
samuele cason 10/10 1233 days 4.76 5%
Wayne Jeskie 9/10 1243 days 4.75 5%
Ray Tombs 10/10 1253 days 4.73 4%
Julian Minnis 10/10 1254 days 4.73 4%
Jean Evans 10/10 1294 days 4.66 4%
Richard Thorpe 7/10 1298 days 4.23 4%
Philippa and Adam 9/10 1309 days 4.63 4%
Mike Awater 10/10 1311 days 4.63 4%
Julia Rey 10/10 1319 days 4.62 4%
Henry Gann 10/10 1321 days 4.61 4%
Jenn 10/10 1351 days 4.56 4%
Brian Gray 10/10 1354 days 4.56 4%
Meta bobnar 9/10 1444 days 4.4 4%
Kirsty Longland 10/10 1477 days 4.35 4%
Wolfgang Rank 10/10 1628 days 4.09 4%
Stephanie Poppe 7/10 1634 days 3.71 3%
Esther Itier 8/10 1654 days true 3.84 4%
Thomas Neron 8/10 1654 days true 3.84 4%
Jaron Frost 10/10 1660 days 4.03 4%
Pete Arney 9/10 1660 days 4.03 4%
Averil Brown 9/10 1685 days 3.99 4%
Janie James 10/10 1719 days 3.93 4%
Enrico Anna 10/10 1719 days 3.93 4%
mark radford 10/10 1719 days 3.93 4%
Bjorn Privat 10/10 1727 days 3.92 4%
Ingrid Harder 10/10 1750 days 3.88 4%
Joanne Robertson 8/10 1757 days true 3.67 3%
johno Tunnell 9/10 1780 days 3.83 4%
Karen Boot 8/10 1780 days 3.64 3%
Emma Barr 10/10 1780 days 3.83 4%
Nicola Whelan Henderson 10/10 1780 days 3.83 4%
Ellen McKee 10/10 1780 days 3.83 4%
Scott kearney 10/10 1780 days 3.83 4%
Lucas MacDonald 10/10 1780 days 3.83 4%
Hartwig Crailsheim 10/10 1780 days 3.83 4%
kim haward 10/10 1872 days 3.67 3%
Alan Williams 10/10 1994 days 3.46 3%
Thomas Hölscher 10/10 1994 days 3.46 3%
Thomas Walsh 9/10 2025 days 3.41 3%
Steve Fraser 5/10 2053 days 2.72 2%
Lee D 1/10 2268 days 2.18 2%
Alex Laidlaw 5/10 2487 days true 2.12 2%
Sander Heike 8/10 2727 days true 2.1 2%
Monika Kneidl 7/10 2730 days true 2.0 2%
Lorna Williams 7/10 2750 days true 1.97 2%
Hilbert vanEssen 3/10 2752 days true 1.67 1%
Ed & Katie Riches 6/10 2767 days true 1.77 2%
Preben vil Helmsen 6/10 2767 days true 1.77 2%
Thomas & Ruth Hardmeier 1/10 2772 days true 1.55 1%
Kurt & Noemi Buhler 1/10 2779 days true 1.55 1%
Des & Ann Bidwell 6/10 2779 days true 1.76 2%
Dugald McCallum 5/10 2783 days true 1.71 1%
James McColl 10/10 2876 days true 1.95 2%
Powerfamily 8/10 2999 days 1.65 1%
Jaime Ress 8/10 3101 days true 1.49 1%
Cory Wornell 10/10 3110 days true 1.55 1%
Thelia Beament 8/10 3124 days true 1.45 1%
Tim Wright 7/10 3147 days true 1.35 1%
SonjaG 5/10 3837 days true 0.25 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 Riverside Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.

Recent Reviews Adjustment

-0.22% Adjustment

There may be an adjustment if an experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 60 days. However the Riverside 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 Riverside Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 11 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.

Days Adjustment
8 -0.16%
9 -0.18%
10 -0.20%
11 -0.22%
12 -0.24%
13 -0.26%
14 -0.28%

Final Ranking Score

91%

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.