G'day, 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 Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks.
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.
Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks
Valid Reviews
142 Valid Reviews
The Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks experience has a total of 144 reviews. There are 142 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 142 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 20 |
|
14% |
| 9/10 | 31 |
|
22% |
| 8/10 | 36 |
|
25% |
| 7/10 | 22 |
|
15% |
| 6/10 | 15 |
|
11% |
| 5/10 | 8 |
|
6% |
| 4/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
75.70% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks valid reviews is 75.70% and is based on 142 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
75 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 142 valid reviews, the experience has 75 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 75 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 12 |
|
16% |
| 9/10 | 16 |
|
21% |
| 8/10 | 20 |
|
27% |
| 7/10 | 14 |
|
19% |
| 6/10 | 7 |
|
9% |
| 5/10 | 4 |
|
5% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
78.93% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks face-to-face reviews is 78.93% and is based on 75 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
83.85%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morten Jensen | 10/10 | 221 days | 100% |
| Julian Vosgerau | 2/10 | 221 days | 46% |
| Pat Maxwell | 10/10 | 252 days | 99% |
| John Giffin | 9/10 | 252 days | 98% |
| Clement | 8/10 | 280 days | 96% |
| Alexa Flecke-Vedovelli | 10/10 | 311 days | 97% |
| Mark B | 10/10 | 645 days | 78% |
| RM | 3/10 | 707 days | 40% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 768 days | 68% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 1226 days | 26% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 1287 days | 22% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 1287 days | 9% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 1376 days | 7% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 1468 days | 12% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 2137 days | 4% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 2625 days | 3% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2748 days | 2% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2748 days | 3% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2837 days | 3% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2868 days | 3% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2960 days | 3% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3143 days | 2% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 3143 days | 2% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 3202 days | 2% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 3212 days | 2% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 3246 days | 2% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 3252 days | 2% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 3327 days | 2% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 3351 days | 2% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 3386 days | 2% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 3469 days | 2% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 3582 days | 2% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3742 days | 1% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3900 days | 1% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3918 days | 1% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3944 days | 1% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3958 days | 1% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 4055 days | 0% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 4061 days | 1% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 4197 days | 0% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 4239 days | 0% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 4270 days | 0% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 4270 days | 0% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 4298 days | 0% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 4298 days | 0% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 4333 days | 0% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 4351 days | 0% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 4360 days | 0% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 4605 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 4659 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 4663 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4694 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4694 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4725 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4725 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4755 days | 1% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4816 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4969 days | 1% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4969 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 5010 days | 1% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 5021 days | 1% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 5028 days | 1% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 5059 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 5076 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 5079 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 5081 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 5357 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5365 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 5368 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 5374 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 5375 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 5378 days | 1% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 5380 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 5387 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 5388 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 5393 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 5405 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 5407 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 5407 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 5420 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5425 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 5463 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 5469 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 5473 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 5486 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 5547 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 5670 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5714 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5723 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5734 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5735 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5754 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5754 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5754 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5755 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5790 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5821 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5882 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5882 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5912 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 6071 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 6084 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 6086 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 6087 days | 1% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 6088 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 6091 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 6098 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 6102 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 6105 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 6105 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 6106 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 6106 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 6110 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 6110 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 6118 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 6120 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 6121 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 6123 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 6133 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 6133 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 6138 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 6144 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 6170 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 6178 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 6190 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 6198 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 6198 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 6199 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 6208 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 6213 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 6230 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 6369 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6411 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 6422 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 6430 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 6432 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 6442 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 6443 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 6450 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 6450 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 6464 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 6464 days | 1% |
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 Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-3.78% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 47 days. However the Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks 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 Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks experience has been adjusted for 192 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 189 | -3.73% |
| 190 | -3.75% |
| 191 | -3.76% |
| 192 | -3.78% |
| 193 | -3.80% |
| 194 | -3.82% |
| 195 | -3.84% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.98% 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
83%
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.