G'day, 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
83.73%
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 | 182 days | 100% |
| Julian Vosgerau | 2/10 | 182 days | 46% |
| Pat Maxwell | 10/10 | 213 days | 99% |
| John Giffin | 9/10 | 213 days | 98% |
| Clement | 8/10 | 241 days | 97% |
| Alexa Flecke-Vedovelli | 10/10 | 272 days | 98% |
| Mark B | 10/10 | 606 days | 81% |
| RM | 3/10 | 668 days | 41% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 729 days | 70% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 1186 days | 28% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 1247 days | 24% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 1247 days | 10% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 1337 days | 8% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 1429 days | 14% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 2098 days | 4% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 2585 days | 3% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2708 days | 2% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2708 days | 3% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2798 days | 3% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2829 days | 3% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2921 days | 3% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3104 days | 2% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 3104 days | 2% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 3163 days | 2% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 3173 days | 2% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 3207 days | 2% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 3213 days | 2% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 3288 days | 2% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 3311 days | 2% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 3346 days | 2% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 3429 days | 2% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 3543 days | 2% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3702 days | 1% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3861 days | 1% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3879 days | 1% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3905 days | 1% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3919 days | 1% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 4016 days | 0% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 4021 days | 1% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 4157 days | 0% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 4199 days | 0% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 4230 days | 0% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 4230 days | 0% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 4258 days | 0% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 4258 days | 0% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 4294 days | 0% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 4312 days | 0% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 4320 days | 0% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 4566 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 4620 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 4624 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4654 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4655 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4686 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4686 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4716 days | 1% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4776 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4930 days | 1% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4930 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4971 days | 1% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4982 days | 1% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4989 days | 1% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 5020 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 5037 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 5040 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 5042 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 5318 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5326 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 5329 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 5335 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 5336 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 5339 days | 1% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 5341 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 5348 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 5349 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 5354 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 5366 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 5368 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 5368 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 5381 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5386 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 5424 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 5430 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 5434 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 5447 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 5507 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 5630 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5675 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5684 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5695 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5696 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5715 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5715 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5715 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5716 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5751 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5782 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5843 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5843 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5872 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 6032 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 6045 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 6047 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 6048 days | 1% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 6049 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 6052 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 6059 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 6063 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 6066 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 6066 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 6067 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 6067 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 6071 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 6071 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 6079 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 6081 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 6082 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 6084 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 6094 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 6094 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 6099 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 6105 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 6131 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 6139 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 6151 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 6159 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 6159 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 6160 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 6169 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 6174 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 6191 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 6329 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6371 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 6382 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 6391 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 6393 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 6403 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 6404 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 6411 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 6411 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 6425 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 6425 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
-2.49% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 68 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 153 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 150 | -2.44% |
| 151 | -2.45% |
| 152 | -2.47% |
| 153 | -2.49% |
| 154 | -2.50% |
| 155 | -2.52% |
| 156 | -2.54% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.66% 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
84%
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.