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
83.61%
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 | 145 days | 100% |
| Julian Vosgerau | 2/10 | 145 days | 45% |
| Pat Maxwell | 10/10 | 176 days | 99% |
| John Giffin | 9/10 | 176 days | 98% |
| Clement | 8/10 | 204 days | 97% |
| Alexa Flecke-Vedovelli | 10/10 | 235 days | 98% |
| Mark B | 10/10 | 569 days | 83% |
| RM | 3/10 | 631 days | 43% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 692 days | 73% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 1150 days | 31% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 1211 days | 27% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 1211 days | 11% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 1300 days | 8% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 1392 days | 16% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 2061 days | 4% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 2549 days | 3% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2672 days | 2% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2672 days | 3% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2761 days | 3% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2792 days | 3% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2884 days | 3% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3067 days | 2% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 3067 days | 3% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 3126 days | 2% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 3136 days | 2% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 3170 days | 2% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 3176 days | 2% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 3251 days | 2% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 3275 days | 2% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 3310 days | 2% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 3393 days | 2% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 3506 days | 2% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3666 days | 1% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3824 days | 1% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3842 days | 1% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3868 days | 1% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3882 days | 1% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 3979 days | 1% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 3985 days | 1% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 4121 days | 0% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 4163 days | 0% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 4194 days | 0% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 4194 days | 0% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 4222 days | 0% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 4222 days | 0% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 4257 days | 0% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 4275 days | 0% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 4284 days | 0% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 4529 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 4583 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 4587 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4618 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4618 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4649 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4649 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4679 days | 1% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4740 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4893 days | 1% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4893 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4934 days | 1% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4945 days | 1% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4952 days | 1% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 4983 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 5000 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 5003 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 5005 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 5281 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5289 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 5292 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 5298 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 5299 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 5302 days | 1% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 5304 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 5311 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 5312 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 5317 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 5329 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 5331 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 5331 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 5344 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5349 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 5387 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 5393 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 5397 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 5410 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 5471 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 5594 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5638 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5647 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5658 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5659 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5678 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5678 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5678 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5679 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5714 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5745 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5806 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5806 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5836 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 5995 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 6008 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 6010 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 6011 days | 1% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 6012 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 6015 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 6022 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 6026 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 6029 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 6029 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 6030 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 6030 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 6034 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 6034 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 6042 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 6044 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 6045 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 6047 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 6057 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 6057 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 6062 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 6068 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 6094 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 6102 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 6114 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 6122 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 6122 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 6123 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 6132 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 6137 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 6154 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 6293 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6335 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 6346 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 6354 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 6356 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 6366 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 6367 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 6374 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 6374 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 6388 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 6388 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
-1.42% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 105 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 116 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 113 | -1.39% |
| 114 | -1.40% |
| 115 | -1.41% |
| 116 | -1.42% |
| 117 | -1.44% |
| 118 | -1.45% |
| 119 | -1.46% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.44% 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.