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
138 Valid Reviews
The Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks experience has a total of 140 reviews. There are 138 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 138 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 18 |
|
13% |
| 9/10 | 30 |
|
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% |
75.65% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks valid reviews is 75.65% and is based on 138 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 138 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
81.37%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clement | 8/10 | 39 days | 98% |
| Alexa Flecke-Vedovelli | 10/10 | 70 days | 100% |
| Mark B | 10/10 | 404 days | 91% |
| RM | 3/10 | 466 days | 48% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 527 days | 84% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 985 days | 44% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 1046 days | 40% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 1046 days | 16% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 1135 days | 13% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 1227 days | 25% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 1896 days | 5% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 2384 days | 4% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2507 days | 2% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2507 days | 3% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2596 days | 3% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2627 days | 3% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2719 days | 3% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 2902 days | 3% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 2902 days | 3% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 2961 days | 3% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 2971 days | 2% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 3005 days | 2% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 3011 days | 3% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 3086 days | 2% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 3110 days | 2% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 3145 days | 2% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 3228 days | 2% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 3341 days | 2% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3501 days | 2% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3659 days | 1% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3677 days | 1% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3703 days | 1% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3717 days | 1% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 3814 days | 1% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 3820 days | 1% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 3956 days | 1% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 3998 days | 1% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 4029 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 4029 days | 1% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 4057 days | 1% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 4057 days | 1% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 4092 days | 0% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 4110 days | 0% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 4119 days | 0% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 4364 days | 0% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 4418 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 4422 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4453 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4453 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4484 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4484 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4514 days | 1% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4575 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4728 days | 1% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4728 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4769 days | 1% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4780 days | 1% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4787 days | 1% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 4818 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 4835 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 4838 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 4840 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 5116 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 5124 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 5127 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 5133 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 5134 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 5137 days | 1% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 5139 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 5146 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 5147 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 5152 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 5164 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 5166 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 5166 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 5179 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 5184 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 5222 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 5228 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 5232 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 5245 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 5306 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 5429 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5473 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5482 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5493 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5494 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5513 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5513 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5513 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5514 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5549 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5580 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5641 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5641 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5671 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 5830 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 5843 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5845 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 5846 days | 1% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 5847 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 5850 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 5857 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 5861 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 5864 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 5864 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5865 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 5865 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 5869 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 5869 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 5877 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 5879 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 5880 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 5882 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 5892 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 5892 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 5897 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5903 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 5929 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 5937 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 5949 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 5957 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 5957 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 5958 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 5967 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 5972 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 5989 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 6128 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 6170 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 6181 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 6189 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 6191 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 6201 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 6202 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 6209 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 6209 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 6223 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 6223 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
-0.48% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 57 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 24 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 21 | -0.42% |
| 22 | -0.44% |
| 23 | -0.46% |
| 24 | -0.48% |
| 25 | -0.50% |
| 26 | -0.52% |
| 27 | -0.54% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.76% 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.