Hey, 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 Rapahoe Beach 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.
Rapahoe Beach Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
91 Valid Reviews
The Rapahoe Beach Holiday Park experience has a total of 93 reviews. There are 91 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 2 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 91 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 37 |
|
41% |
| 9/10 | 22 |
|
24% |
| 8/10 | 14 |
|
15% |
| 7/10 | 8 |
|
9% |
| 6/10 | 4 |
|
4% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
3% |
85.16% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Rapahoe Beach Holiday Park valid reviews is 85.16% and is based on 91 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
22 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 91 valid reviews, the experience has 22 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 22 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 9/10 | 9 |
|
41% |
| 8/10 | 6 |
|
27% |
| 7/10 | 4 |
|
18% |
| 6/10 | 2 |
|
9% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
5% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
78.18% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Rapahoe Beach Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 78.18% and is based on 22 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
94.24%
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 | Relative Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| John Mitchell | 10/10 | 60 days | 100% |
| Andrew | 10/10 | 88 days | 100% |
| Doug | 10/10 | 88 days | 100% |
| Dora | 10/10 | 119 days | 99% |
| Bruce Ross | 10/10 | 119 days | 99% |
| Jojo&Skoko | 10/10 | 119 days | 99% |
| Franklin | 10/10 | 150 days | 99% |
| Annette McGrath | 7/10 | 180 days | 91% |
| TravelingVan | 10/10 | 211 days | 98% |
| Shenay | 10/10 | 241 days | 97% |
| Sheryl Watson | 9/10 | 394 days | 90% |
| Sally Gillespie | 10/10 | 425 days | 90% |
| Christopher Parker | 10/10 | 425 days | 90% |
| Mike C | 10/10 | 425 days | 90% |
| Ginny | 10/10 | 454 days | 88% |
| velvetmayhem | 9/10 | 485 days | 86% |
| Alex | 9/10 | 485 days | 86% |
| Heledd | 9/10 | 485 days | 86% |
| Tom | 10/10 | 485 days | 87% |
| Wendy | 8/10 | 516 days | 83% |
| Steve Collins | 8/10 | 516 days | 83% |
| Pauline | 10/10 | 516 days | 85% |
| George | 10/10 | 577 days | 81% |
| Chelsea | 10/10 | 577 days | 81% |
| Marie Perret | 9/10 | 577 days | 80% |
| Maria Fidler | 9/10 | 577 days | 80% |
| Mae | 10/10 | 730 days | 70% |
| Corrina Smith | 10/10 | 730 days | 70% |
| Riley | 10/10 | 791 days | 64% |
| Kate Fairhall | 10/10 | 819 days | 62% |
| Karen Gilchrist | 10/10 | 819 days | 62% |
| Dannie | 7/10 | 850 days | 55% |
| Matt | 8/10 | 850 days | 58% |
| Jamieson Kohe | 10/10 | 881 days | 56% |
| K Arnold | 1/10 | 1003 days | 17% |
| Emma Brownless | 9/10 | 1521 days | 10% |
| Amber | 9/10 | 1549 days | 9% |
| Jay W | 8/10 | 1733 days | 5% |
| Lena L. | 10/10 | 1886 days | 4% |
| Hannah | 10/10 | 1946 days | 4% |
| Georgie | 10/10 | 2221 days | 4% |
| Mirandah | 8/10 | 2252 days | 4% |
| Sebastian | 10/10 | 2311 days | 4% |
| Moritz | 10/10 | 2342 days | 4% |
| Philip Page | 8/10 | 2433 days | 3% |
| Sandra Day | 1/10 | 2617 days | 1% |
| Wolfgang Sulzer | 5/10 | 2927 days | 2% |
| Andrea Aschenbrenner | 10/10 | 2942 days | 2% |
| Kathy Miller | 9/10 | 2969 days | 2% |
| Johanna Dorner | 9/10 | 2996 days | 2% |
| Annalena Harmeyer | 10/10 | 3006 days | 2% |
| Z H | 1/10 | 3010 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Lindsey | 10/10 | 3041 days | 2% |
| Tracy Ivory | 4/10 | 3072 days | 1% |
| Greg MacFire | 10/10 | 3078 days | 2% |
| Ivan Wee | 8/10 | 3106 days | 2% |
| Ulrich Rix | 8/10 | 3347 days | 2% |
| Ives van Neck | 7/10 | 3369 days | 1% |
| Bianca Nielsen | 10/10 | 3376 days | 2% |
| Philippa and Adam | 6/10 | 3379 days | 1% |
| Manu Hume | 9/10 | 3384 days | 1% |
| Singapore Sling | 6/10 | 3438 days | 1% |
| Tom H | 10/10 | 3713 days | 1% |
| Nicki Rehn | 10/10 | 3729 days | 1% |
| Tim Porter | 9/10 | 3773 days | 1% |
| Helene Andersen | 9/10 | 4073 days | 0% |
| Douglas Dean | 9/10 | 4078 days | 0% |
| Antton Vappula | 9/10 | 4096 days | 0% |
| Michael Turek | 9/10 | 4106 days | 0% |
| Tanje Norton | 10/10 | 4106 days | 0% |
| Sugar Price | 7/10 | 4106 days | 0% |
| Florian Carli | 9/10 | 4137 days | 0% |
| Orla Hughes | 9/10 | 4146 days | 0% |
| Abby Rescr | 7/10 | 4443 days | 0% |
| Frederick Dean | 9/10 | 4443 days | 0% |
| Helen Dean | 9/10 | 4443 days | 0% |
| Joey Mertzig | 9/10 | 4460 days | 0% |
| Henry Howard | 10/10 | 4502 days | 1% |
| Jaap & Susanne | 7/10 | 4817 days | 0% |
| Cindy & Glen Kerunsky | 9/10 | 4824 days | 0% |
| Heini | 8/10 | 4836 days | 0% |
| Fran Williams | 8/10 | 5154 days | 0% |
| Winskowsky | 3/10 | 5176 days | 0% |
| Kuno Eugster | 7/10 | 5182 days | 0% |
| Marleen Meyers | 8/10 | 5185 days | 0% |
| Bob Warne | 7/10 | 5185 days | 0% |
| Irene and Thib Schneider | 6/10 | 5190 days | 0% |
| Patrick Hugener | 8/10 | 5198 days | 0% |
| mikestep | 8/10 | 5873 days | 0% |
| davidne | 8/10 | 5873 days | 0% |
| David_H | 6/10 | 5932 days | 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 Rapahoe Beach Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.75% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 77 days. However the Rapahoe Beach 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 Rapahoe Beach Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 48 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 45 | -0.71% |
| 46 | -0.72% |
| 47 | -0.74% |
| 48 | -0.75% |
| 49 | -0.77% |
| 50 | -0.78% |
| 51 | -0.80% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.59% Adjustment
Every experience's review score is adjusted to balance out the disproportional number of negative reviews that are contributed.
You won't be surprised to learn that disgruntled customers are more likely to leave a review than happy ones. They are motivated to share their experience and warn others. We consider this a good thing and it's why reading the reviews is important. However we've learned it can misrepresent the experience in a more overall sense.
We apply a balancing adjustment to counteract this effect and ensure the ranking score is a more fair representation of the experience. This adjustment is applied equally to all experiences.
Final Ranking Score
94%
The final ranking score once any adjustments, ratings, and rounding has been applied. This value is recalculated each day and a short rolling average is applied. Therefore it may not be precisely accurate based on the other values presented.