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 142 reviews. There are 140 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 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
84.44%
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 | 32 days | 100% |
| John Giffin | 9/10 | 32 days | 99% |
| Clement | 8/10 | 60 days | 98% |
| Alexa Flecke-Vedovelli | 10/10 | 91 days | 100% |
| Mark B | 10/10 | 425 days | 90% |
| RM | 3/10 | 487 days | 47% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 548 days | 82% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 1005 days | 42% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 1066 days | 38% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 1066 days | 15% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 1156 days | 12% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 1248 days | 24% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 1917 days | 4% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 2404 days | 4% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2527 days | 2% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2527 days | 3% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2617 days | 3% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2648 days | 3% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2740 days | 3% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 2923 days | 3% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 2923 days | 3% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 2982 days | 2% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 2992 days | 2% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 3026 days | 2% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 3032 days | 2% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 3107 days | 2% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 3130 days | 2% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 3165 days | 2% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 3248 days | 2% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 3362 days | 2% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3521 days | 1% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3680 days | 1% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3698 days | 1% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3724 days | 1% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3738 days | 1% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 3835 days | 1% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 3840 days | 1% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 3976 days | 1% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 4018 days | 0% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 4049 days | 0% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 4049 days | 0% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 4077 days | 0% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 4077 days | 0% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 4113 days | 0% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 4131 days | 0% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 4139 days | 0% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 4385 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 4439 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 4443 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4473 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4474 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4505 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4505 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4535 days | 1% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4595 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4749 days | 1% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4749 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4790 days | 1% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4801 days | 1% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4808 days | 1% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 4839 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 4856 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 4859 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 4861 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 5137 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5145 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 5148 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 5154 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 5155 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 5158 days | 0% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 5160 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 5167 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 5168 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 5173 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 5185 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 5187 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 5187 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 5200 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5205 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 5243 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 5249 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 5253 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 5266 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 5326 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 5449 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5494 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5503 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5514 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5515 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5534 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5534 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5534 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5535 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5570 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5601 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5662 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5662 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5691 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 5851 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 5864 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5866 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 5867 days | 0% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 5868 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 5871 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 5878 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 5882 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 5885 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 5885 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5886 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 5886 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 5890 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 5890 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 5898 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 5900 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 5901 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 5903 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 5913 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 5913 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 5918 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5924 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 5950 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 5958 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 5970 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 5978 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 5978 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 5979 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 5988 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 5993 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 6010 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 6148 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6190 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 6201 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 6210 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 6212 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 6222 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 6223 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 6230 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 6230 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 6244 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 6244 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
-0.20% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 60 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 11 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 8 | -0.15% |
| 9 | -0.17% |
| 10 | -0.19% |
| 11 | -0.20% |
| 12 | -0.22% |
| 13 | -0.24% |
| 14 | -0.26% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
1.98% 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.