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
140 Valid Reviews
The Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks experience has a total of 143 reviews. There are 140 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 3 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 140 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 19 |
|
14% |
| 9/10 | 31 |
|
22% |
| 8/10 | 36 |
|
26% |
| 7/10 | 22 |
|
16% |
| 6/10 | 15 |
|
11% |
| 5/10 | 8 |
|
6% |
| 4/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
75.93% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks valid reviews is 75.93% and is based on 140 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 140 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
84.54%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pat Maxwell | 10/10 | 52 days | 100% |
| John Giffin | 9/10 | 52 days | 99% |
| Clement | 8/10 | 80 days | 98% |
| Alexa Flecke-Vedovelli | 10/10 | 111 days | 99% |
| Mark B | 10/10 | 445 days | 89% |
| RM | 3/10 | 507 days | 46% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 568 days | 81% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 1026 days | 41% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 1087 days | 36% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 1087 days | 14% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 1176 days | 12% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 1268 days | 22% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 1937 days | 4% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 2425 days | 4% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2548 days | 2% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2548 days | 3% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2637 days | 3% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2668 days | 3% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2760 days | 3% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 2943 days | 3% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 2943 days | 3% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 3002 days | 2% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 3012 days | 2% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 3046 days | 2% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 3052 days | 2% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 3127 days | 2% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 3151 days | 2% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 3186 days | 2% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 3269 days | 2% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 3382 days | 2% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3542 days | 1% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3700 days | 1% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3718 days | 1% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3744 days | 1% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3758 days | 1% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 3855 days | 1% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 3861 days | 1% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 3997 days | 1% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 4038 days | 0% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 4069 days | 0% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 4069 days | 0% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 4097 days | 0% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 4097 days | 0% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 4133 days | 0% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 4151 days | 0% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 4159 days | 0% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 4405 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 4459 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 4463 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4493 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4494 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4525 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4525 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4555 days | 1% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4616 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4769 days | 1% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4769 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4810 days | 1% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4821 days | 1% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4828 days | 1% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 4859 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 4876 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 4879 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 4881 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 5157 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5165 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 5168 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 5174 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 5175 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 5178 days | 0% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 5180 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 5187 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 5188 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 5193 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 5205 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 5207 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 5207 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 5220 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5225 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 5263 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 5269 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 5273 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 5286 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 5347 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 5470 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5514 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5523 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5534 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5535 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5554 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5554 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5554 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5555 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5590 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5621 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5682 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5682 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5712 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 5871 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 5884 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5886 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 5887 days | 0% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 5888 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 5891 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 5898 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 5902 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 5905 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 5905 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5906 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 5906 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 5910 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 5910 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 5918 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 5920 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 5921 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 5923 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 5933 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 5933 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 5938 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5944 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 5970 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 5978 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 5990 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 5998 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 5998 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 5999 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 6008 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 6013 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 6030 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 6169 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6211 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 6222 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 6230 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 6232 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 6242 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 6243 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 6250 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 6250 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 6264 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 6264 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 70 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 31 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 28 | -0.46% |
| 29 | -0.48% |
| 30 | -0.50% |
| 31 | -0.51% |
| 32 | -0.53% |
| 33 | -0.55% |
| 34 | -0.56% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.02% 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
86%
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.