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
83.79%
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 | 202 days | 100% |
| Julian Vosgerau | 2/10 | 202 days | 46% |
| Pat Maxwell | 10/10 | 233 days | 99% |
| John Giffin | 9/10 | 233 days | 98% |
| Clement | 8/10 | 261 days | 96% |
| Alexa Flecke-Vedovelli | 10/10 | 292 days | 97% |
| Mark B | 10/10 | 626 days | 79% |
| RM | 3/10 | 688 days | 41% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 749 days | 69% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 1207 days | 27% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 1268 days | 23% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 1268 days | 9% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 1357 days | 7% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 1449 days | 13% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 2118 days | 4% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 2606 days | 3% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2729 days | 2% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2729 days | 3% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2818 days | 3% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2849 days | 3% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2941 days | 3% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3124 days | 2% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 3124 days | 2% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 3183 days | 2% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 3193 days | 2% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 3227 days | 2% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 3233 days | 2% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 3308 days | 2% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 3332 days | 2% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 3367 days | 2% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 3450 days | 2% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 3563 days | 2% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3723 days | 1% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3881 days | 1% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3899 days | 1% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3925 days | 1% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3939 days | 1% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 4036 days | 0% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 4042 days | 1% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 4178 days | 0% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 4219 days | 0% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 4250 days | 0% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 4250 days | 0% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 4278 days | 0% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 4278 days | 0% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 4314 days | 0% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 4332 days | 0% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 4340 days | 0% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 4586 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 4640 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 4644 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4674 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4675 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4706 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4706 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4736 days | 1% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4797 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4950 days | 1% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4950 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4991 days | 1% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 5002 days | 1% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 5009 days | 1% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 5040 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 5057 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 5060 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 5062 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 5338 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5346 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 5349 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 5355 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 5356 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 5359 days | 1% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 5361 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 5368 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 5369 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 5374 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 5386 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 5388 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 5388 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 5401 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5406 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 5444 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 5450 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 5454 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 5467 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 5528 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 5651 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5695 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5704 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5715 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5716 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5735 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5735 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5735 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5736 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5771 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5802 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5863 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5863 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5893 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 6052 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 6065 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 6067 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 6068 days | 1% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 6069 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 6072 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 6079 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 6083 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 6086 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 6086 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 6087 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 6087 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 6091 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 6091 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 6099 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 6101 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 6102 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 6104 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 6114 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 6114 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 6119 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 6125 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 6151 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 6159 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 6171 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 6179 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 6179 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 6180 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 6189 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 6194 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 6211 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 6350 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6392 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 6403 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 6411 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 6413 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 6423 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 6424 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 6431 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 6431 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 6445 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 6445 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
-3.16% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 57 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 173 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 170 | -3.11% |
| 171 | -3.13% |
| 172 | -3.15% |
| 173 | -3.16% |
| 174 | -3.18% |
| 175 | -3.20% |
| 176 | -3.22% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.83% 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
84%
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.