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 Wanaka Hampshire Holiday 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.
Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
144 Valid Reviews
The Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park experience has a total of 147 reviews. There are 144 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 3 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 144 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 23 |
|
16% |
| 9/10 | 27 |
|
19% |
| 8/10 | 32 |
|
22% |
| 7/10 | 19 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 19 |
|
13% |
| 5/10 | 13 |
|
9% |
| 4/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
74.24% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park valid reviews is 74.24% and is based on 144 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
34 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 144 valid reviews, the experience has 34 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 34 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 2 |
|
6% |
| 9/10 | 3 |
|
9% |
| 8/10 | 7 |
|
21% |
| 7/10 | 2 |
|
6% |
| 6/10 | 7 |
|
21% |
| 5/10 | 7 |
|
21% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
6% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
9% |
60.88% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 60.88% and is based on 34 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
84.35%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dean | 10/10 | 125 days | 100% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 247 days | 96% |
| Hannah | 10/10 | 247 days | 97% |
| Jorian | 6/10 | 278 days | 83% |
| Lou | 10/10 | 307 days | 95% |
| Tal Tal | 10/10 | 338 days | 94% |
| Donna Harbidge | 9/10 | 460 days | 88% |
| Charlie | 9/10 | 491 days | 86% |
| Henry | 9/10 | 522 days | 84% |
| Amy Catley | 6/10 | 583 days | 70% |
| FitzHanss | 10/10 | 644 days | 77% |
| Lieke | 4/10 | 672 days | 49% |
| Ju | 4/10 | 672 days | 49% |
| Alexandra | 9/10 | 703 days | 72% |
| Aiden | 6/10 | 703 days | 62% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 703 days | 72% |
| RR | 9/10 | 734 days | 69% |
| Sophie | 8/10 | 734 days | 68% |
| Amel | 10/10 | 734 days | 70% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 734 days | 69% |
| Evan | 8/10 | 764 days | 66% |
| Marcus | 3/10 | 764 days | 37% |
| Rebecca Woodbridge | 8/10 | 764 days | 66% |
| Eoin from Ireland | 10/10 | 795 days | 64% |
| Hannah and Matthew | 7/10 | 856 days | 55% |
| Justin | 10/10 | 1068 days | 38% |
| Wayne | 10/10 | 1160 days | 30% |
| Karthik | 10/10 | 1343 days | 18% |
| Thomas neil | 9/10 | 1374 days | 16% |
| Ange | 10/10 | 1433 days | 14% |
| Rach | 8/10 | 1494 days | 11% |
| Grace | 10/10 | 1494 days | 11% |
| JS | 8/10 | 1555 days | 9% |
| Jed Barnett | 10/10 | 1768 days | 5% |
| Clauds | 9/10 | 1768 days | 5% |
| Amanda | 8/10 | 1799 days | 5% |
| Fran | 9/10 | 1830 days | 5% |
| Sheri | 10/10 | 1860 days | 5% |
| Linda QLD | 9/10 | 2013 days | 4% |
| Lisanne | 7/10 | 2074 days | 4% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2105 days | 4% |
| John | 3/10 | 2105 days | 2% |
| Michi | 9/10 | 2105 days | 4% |
| Jacqui | 8/10 | 2164 days | 4% |
| Inna | 10/10 | 2164 days | 4% |
| Tac | 9/10 | 2164 days | 4% |
| Anwang | 7/10 | 2195 days | 4% |
| Juraj | 7/10 | 2195 days | 4% |
| Kelsie | 9/10 | 2225 days | 4% |
| Nifty | 8/10 | 2225 days | 4% |
| Violet Murphy | 5/10 | 2256 days | 3% |
| Philip Page | 7/10 | 2256 days | 4% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2256 days | 4% |
| Adva Cohen | 1/10 | 2286 days | 2% |
| Rachel | 8/10 | 2286 days | 4% |
| Holly Bartholomew | 7/10 | 2286 days | 4% |
| Cassie | 8/10 | 2286 days | 4% |
| Andres | 10/10 | 2317 days | 4% |
| Abu Samah Harun | 10/10 | 2348 days | 4% |
| Bex & Jake | 9/10 | 2409 days | 4% |
| Nathaniel Bond | 9/10 | 2468 days | 3% |
| Nicky Edwards | 9/10 | 2483 days | 4% |
| Hanneke van Dijk | 6/10 | 2503 days | 2% |
| Rogier van de Wiel | 8/10 | 2509 days | 3% |
| Helen Bond | 10/10 | 2529 days | 4% |
| Leong Mee Yee | 8/10 | 2531 days | 3% |
| Meijerelske | 9/10 | 2535 days | 3% |
| Laura Meelynn | 8/10 | 2559 days | 3% |
| Joe Trigg | 8/10 | 2601 days | 3% |
| Jenna Neivandt | 10/10 | 2641 days | 3% |
| Jozef Pinkerton | 6/10 | 2641 days | 3% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 2673 days | 3% |
| Chloe Watson | 8/10 | 2706 days | 3% |
| Duncan | 7/10 | 2758 days | 3% |
| Marc Lambert | 5/10 | 2810 days | 2% |
| Renard D | 5/10 | 2838 days | 2% |
| Daniel Andersson | 8/10 | 2862 days | 3% |
| Victoria Strong | 8/10 | 2892 days | 3% |
| David Townsend | 6/10 | 2943 days | 2% |
| Alicia McCormick | 6/10 | 3069 days | 2% |
| W Donovan | 8/10 | 3145 days | 2% |
| Wayne Jeskie | 5/10 | 3156 days | 2% |
| phillip dudman | 7/10 | 3156 days | 2% |
| Sara Dimnik | 7/10 | 3182 days | 2% |
| Sean Stevens | 8/10 | 3201 days | 2% |
| Corina Sima | 8/10 | 3207 days | 2% |
| Perrine Pilate | 8/10 | 3218 days | 2% |
| Helen James | 6/10 | 3230 days | 2% |
| Alex Macdonald | 6/10 | 3259 days | 2% |
| Harriet Bramley | 7/10 | 3385 days | 2% |
| Mitchell Henderson | 6/10 | 3411 days | 2% |
| Amy Steiger | 7/10 | 3412 days | 2% |
| Shelley | 5/10 | 3436 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 6/10 | 3481 days | 1% |
| Alistair Millward | 7/10 | 3562 days | 1% |
| Sam Smith | 5/10 | 3565 days | 1% |
| Adam Wight | 6/10 | 3568 days | 1% |
| Sebastiaan Kemperman | 6/10 | 3580 days | 1% |
| Wilma Senior | 7/10 | 3593 days | 1% |
| Stefanie Feldman | 7/10 | 3613 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Weight | 8/10 | 3617 days | 1% |
| Alexis Leneveu | 10/10 | 3632 days | 1% |
| Viki Ziemba | 9/10 | 3649 days | 1% |
| Bert Snel | 9/10 | 3685 days | 1% |
| Claudia | 10/10 | 3746 days | 1% |
| Ane Didriksen | 6/10 | 3897 days | 0% |
| Iris Anette Berger | 6/10 | 3897 days | 0% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 3900 days | 1% |
| JoMary Smith | 7/10 | 3959 days | 1% |
| catherine welsh | 6/10 | 3990 days | 1% |
| andrewmh | 8/10 | 4021 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 8/10 | 4051 days | 0% |
| Jitka Krejcova | 10/10 | 4282 days | 0% |
| Bertiethebus | 7/10 | 4296 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 9/10 | 4306 days | 0% |
| Peter & Kate Carmichael | 8/10 | 4672 days | 1% |
| Aoife Lillis | 9/10 | 4678 days | 1% |
| G Tulloch | 1/10 | 4990 days | 0% |
| Sally Reeves | 1/10 | 5006 days | 0% |
| Hanggi | 10/10 | 5007 days | 1% |
| Julie | 5/10 | 5009 days | 0% |
| Alex | 7/10 | 5014 days | 1% |
| Eddie Stevens | 5/10 | 5021 days | 0% |
| Claudia Vermeer | 8/10 | 5041 days | 1% |
| Gillian de Vries | 6/10 | 5048 days | 1% |
| dollimyxture | 7/10 | 5117 days | 1% |
| Polil | 5/10 | 5378 days | 0% |
| Marcus Kippner | 8/10 | 5383 days | 1% |
| Barbara & Sven | 5/10 | 5394 days | 0% |
| Rolf X | 6/10 | 5402 days | 1% |
| Schygulla | 8/10 | 5412 days | 1% |
| Sinjc Grude | 8/10 | 5417 days | 1% |
| Lorena | 9/10 | 5420 days | 1% |
| Ross & Catherine Litherland | 2/10 | 5433 days | 0% |
| asselman | 4/10 | 5467 days | 0% |
| Decuq | 5/10 | 5493 days | 0% |
| paulandcathy | 5/10 | 5537 days | 0% |
| Kelly | 5/10 | 5637 days | 0% |
| OliverG1 | 8/10 | 5714 days | 1% |
| JoR | 4/10 | 5714 days | 0% |
| Vivien Williams | 1/10 | 5744 days | 0% |
| MetteK | 8/10 | 5760 days | 1% |
| Lucas | 6/10 | 5769 days | 1% |
| Frank | 7/10 | 5769 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 Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-2.10% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 42 days. However the Wanaka Hampshire Holiday 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 Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 103 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 100 | -2.04% |
| 101 | -2.06% |
| 102 | -2.08% |
| 103 | -2.10% |
| 104 | -2.12% |
| 105 | -2.14% |
| 106 | -2.16% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.42% 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.