Kia ora, 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 Portobello Village Tourist Park.
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.
Portobello Village Tourist Park
Valid Reviews
112 Valid Reviews
The Portobello Village Tourist Park experience has a total of 112 valid reviews. There are no 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 112 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 15 |
|
13% |
| 9/10 | 25 |
|
22% |
| 8/10 | 34 |
|
30% |
| 7/10 | 18 |
|
16% |
| 6/10 | 14 |
|
13% |
| 5/10 | 3 |
|
3% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
78.48% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Portobello Village Tourist Park valid reviews is 78.48% and is based on 112 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
30 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 112 valid reviews, the experience has 30 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 30 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 6 |
|
20% |
| 9/10 | 7 |
|
23% |
| 8/10 | 9 |
|
30% |
| 7/10 | 3 |
|
10% |
| 6/10 | 3 |
|
10% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
80.67% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Portobello Village Tourist Park face-to-face reviews is 80.67% and is based on 30 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
81.34%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paul | 8/10 | 79 days | 100% |
| Rich | 7/10 | 171 days | 94% |
| Eline | 6/10 | 262 days | 85% |
| Laurie | 9/10 | 293 days | 96% |
| Hannah | 10/10 | 321 days | 96% |
| Shaun | 10/10 | 321 days | 96% |
| Anne | 8/10 | 352 days | 93% |
| Fredrik | 6/10 | 352 days | 82% |
| Nicolas | 7/10 | 444 days | 85% |
| Hayley | 9/10 | 505 days | 87% |
| Lindsay Byrnes | 8/10 | 627 days | 78% |
| Fabienne | 8/10 | 658 days | 76% |
| Ian Garcia | 8/10 | 687 days | 73% |
| Tine Warner | 9/10 | 718 days | 72% |
| Joel Fryett | 6/10 | 718 days | 62% |
| Loam | 6/10 | 718 days | 62% |
| M.K. | 9/10 | 810 days | 63% |
| Ryli West | 8/10 | 993 days | 45% |
| Steve | 9/10 | 1024 days | 42% |
| Jake | 10/10 | 1052 days | 40% |
| Arie | 7/10 | 1083 days | 35% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 1114 days | 34% |
| Debby | 9/10 | 1144 days | 32% |
| Lothar Valentijn | 10/10 | 1144 days | 32% |
| Sarah | 9/10 | 1144 days | 32% |
| Colin | 8/10 | 1175 days | 29% |
| Lisa | 10/10 | 1297 days | 21% |
| Anne S | 9/10 | 1389 days | 16% |
| Ana and Rob | 8/10 | 1966 days | 5% |
| Sandy | 9/10 | 1997 days | 5% |
| Maria | 6/10 | 2119 days | 4% |
| M&P | 8/10 | 2148 days | 4% |
| Tom Z. | 9/10 | 2179 days | 4% |
| Tea | 8/10 | 2210 days | 4% |
| Sue W | 8/10 | 2240 days | 4% |
| Maryline | 9/10 | 2454 days | 4% |
| Esa | 7/10 | 2485 days | 4% |
| Vincent | 9/10 | 2485 days | 4% |
| TP&MM | 8/10 | 2485 days | 4% |
| Chantal | 10/10 | 2575 days | 4% |
| James & Kerry | 9/10 | 2605 days | 4% |
| Melinda Pyke | 8/10 | 2666 days | 3% |
| Grizzly Girl | 8/10 | 2666 days | 3% |
| Esteban | 8/10 | 2819 days | 3% |
| Bridget Cumming | 7/10 | 2857 days | 3% |
| M A Pelton | 10/10 | 2860 days | 3% |
| UK 50-something couple | 8/10 | 2878 days | 3% |
| Suzanne Wijsman | 9/10 | 2886 days | 3% |
| Sandra Jeffers | 6/10 | 2986 days | 2% |
| Howard Morris | 8/10 | 3002 days | 3% |
| Geoff Steele | 7/10 | 3031 days | 2% |
| Matthias Wohlgemuth | 7/10 | 3257 days | 2% |
| sara hoeflaken | 8/10 | 3271 days | 2% |
| Roeland Driessen | 8/10 | 3274 days | 2% |
| Cyrielle Vallat | 6/10 | 3329 days | 2% |
| Susan H | 10/10 | 3368 days | 2% |
| Ruth Hernandez | 8/10 | 3370 days | 2% |
| Kate | 8/10 | 3503 days | 2% |
| Joanna du Toit | 7/10 | 3660 days | 1% |
| Yvonne Wu | 8/10 | 3885 days | 1% |
| Soizic Vandermeersch | 7/10 | 3907 days | 1% |
| Rossco | 6/10 | 3915 days | 1% |
| Erica b | 7/10 | 3915 days | 1% |
| Larry Dashiell | 9/10 | 3946 days | 1% |
| June Harris | 6/10 | 4005 days | 1% |
| Matthias Thorn | 7/10 | 4005 days | 1% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 4189 days | 0% |
| travelscot | 9/10 | 4250 days | 0% |
| Patricia Revel | 9/10 | 4281 days | 0% |
| Katarina | 10/10 | 4282 days | 0% |
| Gillian Scott | 7/10 | 4309 days | 0% |
| Julie Robinson | 7/10 | 4326 days | 0% |
| Julien de la lande | 6/10 | 4352 days | 0% |
| Wouter Bosch | 7/10 | 4352 days | 0% |
| Aude Moulin | 5/10 | 4352 days | 0% |
| Maya Bakker-deDreu | 8/10 | 4360 days | 0% |
| JoMary Smith | 8/10 | 4370 days | 0% |
| 2 tent travelers from Montreal | 5/10 | 4401 days | 1% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4645 days | 1% |
| Bertiethebus | 8/10 | 4676 days | 1% |
| Kadyan | 6/10 | 4676 days | 1% |
| Malgorzata | 6/10 | 4680 days | 1% |
| Moni Sangoi | 7/10 | 4704 days | 1% |
| Puma17 | 7/10 | 4735 days | 1% |
| David | 5/10 | 4735 days | 1% |
| Auger | 10/10 | 4773 days | 1% |
| Auger | 10/10 | 4773 days | 1% |
| Mike & Jennie | 8/10 | 5052 days | 1% |
| Balonno | 3/10 | 5101 days | 1% |
| lydzb | 6/10 | 5132 days | 1% |
| ncopas | 1/10 | 5132 days | 0% |
| Annie Breton | 6/10 | 5390 days | 1% |
| Robin Smith | 10/10 | 5393 days | 1% |
| Jim & Rebecca | 9/10 | 5399 days | 1% |
| Tony & Marina Greenaway | 8/10 | 5400 days | 1% |
| Chris | 8/10 | 5401 days | 1% |
| LandJ | 9/10 | 5407 days | 1% |
| Manfred & Gabi | 9/10 | 5418 days | 1% |
| Frank Lehe | 8/10 | 5420 days | 1% |
| Marieke and Bert-Jan | 8/10 | 5423 days | 1% |
| Roy Seymour | 8/10 | 5426 days | 1% |
| Sabine | 9/10 | 5685 days | 1% |
| Anna | 9/10 | 5690 days | 1% |
| Siebels Wilke | 8/10 | 5704 days | 1% |
| Peter Aerborg | 9/10 | 5708 days | 1% |
| Peter Brown | 10/10 | 5768 days | 1% |
| John Cox | 8/10 | 5778 days | 1% |
| Helmet Paula | 3/10 | 5785 days | 0% |
| Lorena | 10/10 | 5800 days | 1% |
| Alexis De Wilde | 9/10 | 5872 days | 1% |
| Decuq | 7/10 | 5873 days | 1% |
| Vivien Williams | 10/10 | 6124 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 Portobello Village Tourist Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-1.01% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 42 days. However the Portobello Village Tourist Park 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 Portobello Village Tourist Park experience has been adjusted for 50 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 47 | -0.95% |
| 48 | -0.97% |
| 49 | -0.99% |
| 50 | -1.01% |
| 51 | -1.03% |
| 52 | -1.05% |
| 53 | -1.07% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.90% 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
83%
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.