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
83.31%
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 | 53 days | 100% |
| Julian Vosgerau | 2/10 | 53 days | 45% |
| Pat Maxwell | 10/10 | 84 days | 100% |
| John Giffin | 9/10 | 84 days | 99% |
| Clement | 8/10 | 112 days | 97% |
| Alexa Flecke-Vedovelli | 10/10 | 143 days | 99% |
| Mark B | 10/10 | 477 days | 87% |
| RM | 3/10 | 539 days | 45% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 600 days | 79% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 1058 days | 38% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 1119 days | 33% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 1119 days | 13% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 1208 days | 11% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 1300 days | 20% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 1969 days | 4% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 2457 days | 4% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2580 days | 2% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2580 days | 3% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2669 days | 3% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2700 days | 3% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2792 days | 3% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 2975 days | 3% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 2975 days | 3% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 3034 days | 2% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 3044 days | 2% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 3078 days | 2% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 3084 days | 2% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 3159 days | 2% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 3183 days | 2% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 3218 days | 2% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 3301 days | 2% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 3414 days | 2% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3574 days | 1% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3732 days | 1% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3750 days | 1% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3776 days | 1% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3790 days | 1% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 3887 days | 1% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 3893 days | 1% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 4029 days | 1% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 4071 days | 0% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 4102 days | 0% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 4102 days | 0% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 4130 days | 0% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 4130 days | 0% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 4165 days | 0% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 4183 days | 0% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 4192 days | 0% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 4437 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 4491 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 4495 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4526 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4526 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4557 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4557 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4587 days | 1% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4648 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4801 days | 1% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4801 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4842 days | 1% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4853 days | 1% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4860 days | 1% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 4891 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 4908 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 4911 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 4913 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 5189 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5197 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 5200 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 5206 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 5207 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 5210 days | 0% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 5212 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 5219 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 5220 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 5225 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 5237 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 5239 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 5239 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 5252 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5257 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 5295 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 5301 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 5305 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 5318 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 5379 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 5502 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5546 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5555 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5566 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5567 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5586 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5586 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5586 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5587 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5622 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5653 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5714 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5714 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5744 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 5903 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 5916 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5918 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 5919 days | 0% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 5920 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 5923 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 5930 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 5934 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 5937 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 5937 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5938 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 5938 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 5942 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 5942 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 5950 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 5952 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 5953 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 5955 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 5965 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 5965 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 5970 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5976 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 6002 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 6010 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 6022 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 6030 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 6030 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 6031 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 6040 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 6045 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 6062 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 6201 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6243 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 6254 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 6262 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 6264 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 6274 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 6275 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 6282 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 6282 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 6296 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 6296 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
-0.33% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 99 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 25 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 22 | -0.29% |
| 23 | -0.30% |
| 24 | -0.31% |
| 25 | -0.33% |
| 26 | -0.34% |
| 27 | -0.35% |
| 28 | -0.37% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.25% 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.