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 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
83.38%
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 | 75 days | 100% |
| Julian Vosgerau | 2/10 | 75 days | 45% |
| Pat Maxwell | 10/10 | 106 days | 100% |
| John Giffin | 9/10 | 106 days | 99% |
| Clement | 8/10 | 134 days | 97% |
| Alexa Flecke-Vedovelli | 10/10 | 165 days | 99% |
| Mark B | 10/10 | 499 days | 86% |
| RM | 3/10 | 561 days | 45% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 622 days | 77% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 1080 days | 36% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 1141 days | 32% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 1141 days | 13% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 1230 days | 10% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 1322 days | 19% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 1991 days | 4% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 2479 days | 4% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2602 days | 2% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2602 days | 3% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2691 days | 3% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2722 days | 3% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2814 days | 3% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 2997 days | 3% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 2997 days | 3% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 3056 days | 2% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 3066 days | 2% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 3100 days | 2% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 3106 days | 2% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 3181 days | 2% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 3205 days | 2% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 3240 days | 2% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 3323 days | 2% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 3436 days | 2% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3596 days | 1% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3754 days | 1% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3772 days | 1% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3798 days | 1% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3812 days | 1% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 3909 days | 1% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 3915 days | 1% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 4051 days | 0% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 4093 days | 0% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 4124 days | 0% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 4124 days | 0% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 4152 days | 0% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 4152 days | 0% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 4187 days | 0% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 4205 days | 0% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 4214 days | 0% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 4459 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 4513 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 4517 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4548 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4548 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4579 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4579 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4609 days | 1% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4670 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4823 days | 1% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4823 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4864 days | 1% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4875 days | 1% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4882 days | 1% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 4913 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 4930 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 4933 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 4935 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 5211 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5219 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 5222 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 5228 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 5229 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 5232 days | 0% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 5234 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 5241 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 5242 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 5247 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 5259 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 5261 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 5261 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 5274 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5279 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 5317 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 5323 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 5327 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 5340 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 5401 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 5524 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5568 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5577 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5588 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5589 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5608 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5608 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5608 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5609 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5644 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5675 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5736 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5736 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5766 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 5925 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 5938 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5940 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 5941 days | 0% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 5942 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 5945 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 5952 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 5956 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 5959 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 5959 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5960 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 5960 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 5964 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 5964 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 5972 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 5974 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 5975 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 5977 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 5987 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 5987 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 5992 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5998 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 6024 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 6032 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 6044 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 6052 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 6052 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 6053 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 6062 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 6067 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 6084 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 6223 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6265 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 6276 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 6284 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 6286 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 6296 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 6297 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 6304 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 6304 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 6318 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 6318 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
-0.51% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 116 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 46 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 43 | -0.48% |
| 44 | -0.49% |
| 45 | -0.50% |
| 46 | -0.51% |
| 47 | -0.52% |
| 48 | -0.53% |
| 49 | -0.54% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.28% 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
85%
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.