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
83.27%
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 | 43 days | 100% |
| Julian Vosgerau | 2/10 | 43 days | 45% |
| Pat Maxwell | 10/10 | 74 days | 100% |
| John Giffin | 9/10 | 74 days | 99% |
| Clement | 8/10 | 102 days | 98% |
| Alexa Flecke-Vedovelli | 10/10 | 133 days | 99% |
| Mark B | 10/10 | 467 days | 88% |
| RM | 3/10 | 529 days | 46% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 590 days | 79% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 1048 days | 39% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 1109 days | 34% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 1109 days | 14% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 1198 days | 11% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 1290 days | 21% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 1959 days | 4% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 2447 days | 4% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2570 days | 2% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2570 days | 3% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2659 days | 3% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2690 days | 3% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2782 days | 3% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 2965 days | 3% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 2965 days | 3% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 3024 days | 2% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 3034 days | 2% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 3068 days | 2% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 3074 days | 2% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 3149 days | 2% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 3173 days | 2% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 3208 days | 2% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 3291 days | 2% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 3404 days | 2% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3564 days | 1% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3722 days | 1% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3740 days | 1% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3766 days | 1% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3780 days | 1% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 3877 days | 1% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 3883 days | 1% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 4019 days | 1% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 4061 days | 0% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 4092 days | 0% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 4092 days | 0% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 4120 days | 0% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 4120 days | 0% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 4155 days | 0% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 4173 days | 0% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 4182 days | 0% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 4427 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 4481 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 4485 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4516 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4516 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4547 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4547 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4577 days | 1% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4638 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4791 days | 1% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4791 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4832 days | 1% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4843 days | 1% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4850 days | 1% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 4881 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 4898 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 4901 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 4903 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 5179 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5187 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 5190 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 5196 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 5197 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 5200 days | 0% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 5202 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 5209 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 5210 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 5215 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 5227 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 5229 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 5229 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 5242 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5247 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 5285 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 5291 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 5295 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 5308 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 5369 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 5492 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5536 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5545 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5556 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5557 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5576 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5576 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5576 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5577 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5612 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5643 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5704 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5704 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5734 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 5893 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 5906 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5908 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 5909 days | 0% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 5910 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 5913 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 5920 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 5924 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 5927 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 5927 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5928 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 5928 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 5932 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 5932 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 5940 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 5942 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 5943 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 5945 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 5955 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 5955 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 5960 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5966 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 5992 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 6000 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 6012 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 6020 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 6020 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 6021 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 6030 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 6035 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 6052 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 6191 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6233 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 6244 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 6252 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 6254 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 6264 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 6265 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 6272 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 6272 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 6286 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 6286 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
-0.21% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 90 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 15 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 12 | -0.17% |
| 13 | -0.18% |
| 14 | -0.20% |
| 15 | -0.21% |
| 16 | -0.23% |
| 17 | -0.24% |
| 18 | -0.25% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.23% 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.