Hi, 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
83.53%
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 | 120 days | 100% |
| Julian Vosgerau | 2/10 | 120 days | 45% |
| Pat Maxwell | 10/10 | 151 days | 100% |
| John Giffin | 9/10 | 151 days | 99% |
| Clement | 8/10 | 179 days | 97% |
| Alexa Flecke-Vedovelli | 10/10 | 210 days | 98% |
| Mark B | 10/10 | 544 days | 84% |
| RM | 3/10 | 606 days | 43% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 667 days | 74% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 1125 days | 32% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 1186 days | 28% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 1186 days | 11% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 1275 days | 9% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 1367 days | 17% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 2036 days | 4% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 2524 days | 3% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2647 days | 2% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2647 days | 3% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2736 days | 3% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2767 days | 3% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2859 days | 3% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3042 days | 3% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 3042 days | 3% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 3101 days | 2% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 3111 days | 2% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 3145 days | 2% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 3151 days | 2% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 3226 days | 2% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 3250 days | 2% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 3285 days | 2% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 3368 days | 2% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 3481 days | 2% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3641 days | 1% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3799 days | 1% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3817 days | 1% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3843 days | 1% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3857 days | 1% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 3954 days | 1% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 3960 days | 1% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 4096 days | 0% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 4138 days | 0% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 4169 days | 0% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 4169 days | 0% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 4197 days | 0% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 4197 days | 0% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 4232 days | 0% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 4250 days | 0% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 4259 days | 0% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 4504 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 4558 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 4562 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4593 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4593 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4624 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4624 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4654 days | 1% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4715 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4868 days | 1% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4868 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4909 days | 1% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4920 days | 1% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4927 days | 1% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 4958 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 4975 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 4978 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 4980 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 5256 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5264 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 5267 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 5273 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 5274 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 5277 days | 1% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 5279 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 5286 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 5287 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 5292 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 5304 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 5306 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 5306 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 5319 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5324 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 5362 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 5368 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 5372 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 5385 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 5446 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 5569 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5613 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5622 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5633 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5634 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5653 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5653 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5653 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5654 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5689 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5720 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5781 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5781 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5811 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 5970 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 5983 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5985 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 5986 days | 1% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 5987 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 5990 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 5997 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 6001 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 6004 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 6004 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 6005 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 6005 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 6009 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 6009 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 6017 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 6019 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 6020 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 6022 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 6032 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 6032 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 6037 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 6043 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 6069 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 6077 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 6089 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 6097 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 6097 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 6098 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 6107 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 6112 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 6129 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 6268 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6310 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 6321 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 6329 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 6331 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 6341 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 6342 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 6349 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 6349 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 6363 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 6363 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
-0.96% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 123 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 92 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 89 | -0.93% |
| 90 | -0.94% |
| 91 | -0.95% |
| 92 | -0.96% |
| 93 | -0.97% |
| 94 | -0.98% |
| 95 | -0.99% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.34% 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.