Kia ora, 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
83.47%
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 | 101 days | 100% |
| Julian Vosgerau | 2/10 | 101 days | 45% |
| Pat Maxwell | 10/10 | 132 days | 100% |
| John Giffin | 9/10 | 132 days | 99% |
| Clement | 8/10 | 160 days | 97% |
| Alexa Flecke-Vedovelli | 10/10 | 191 days | 98% |
| Mark B | 10/10 | 525 days | 85% |
| RM | 3/10 | 587 days | 44% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 648 days | 76% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 1106 days | 34% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 1167 days | 30% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 1167 days | 12% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 1256 days | 9% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 1348 days | 18% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 2017 days | 4% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 2505 days | 3% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2628 days | 2% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2628 days | 3% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2717 days | 3% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2748 days | 3% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2840 days | 3% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3023 days | 3% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 3023 days | 3% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 3082 days | 2% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 3092 days | 2% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 3126 days | 2% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 3132 days | 2% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 3207 days | 2% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 3231 days | 2% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 3266 days | 2% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 3349 days | 2% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 3462 days | 2% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3622 days | 1% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3780 days | 1% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3798 days | 1% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3824 days | 1% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3838 days | 1% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 3935 days | 1% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 3941 days | 1% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 4077 days | 0% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 4118 days | 0% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 4149 days | 0% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 4149 days | 0% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 4177 days | 0% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 4177 days | 0% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 4213 days | 0% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 4231 days | 0% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 4239 days | 0% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 4485 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 4539 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 4543 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4573 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4574 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4605 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4605 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4635 days | 1% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4696 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4849 days | 1% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4849 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4890 days | 1% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4901 days | 1% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4908 days | 1% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 4939 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 4956 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 4959 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 4961 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 5237 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5245 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 5248 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 5254 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 5255 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 5258 days | 1% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 5260 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 5267 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 5268 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 5273 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 5285 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 5287 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 5287 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 5300 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5305 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 5343 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 5349 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 5353 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 5366 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 5427 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 5550 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5594 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5603 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5614 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5615 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5634 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5634 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5634 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5635 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5670 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5701 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5762 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5762 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5792 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 5951 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 5964 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5966 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 5967 days | 1% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 5968 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 5971 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 5978 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 5982 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 5985 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 5985 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5986 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 5986 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 5990 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 5990 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 5998 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 6000 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 6001 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 6003 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 6013 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 6013 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 6018 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 6024 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 6050 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 6058 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 6070 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 6078 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 6078 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 6079 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 6088 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 6093 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 6110 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 6249 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6291 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 6302 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 6310 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 6312 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 6322 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 6323 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 6330 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 6330 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 6344 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 6344 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
-0.72% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 125 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 72 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 69 | -0.69% |
| 70 | -0.70% |
| 71 | -0.71% |
| 72 | -0.72% |
| 73 | -0.73% |
| 74 | -0.74% |
| 75 | -0.75% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.30% 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.