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 Mt / Mount Aspiring 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.
Mt / Mount Aspiring Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
115 Valid Reviews
The Mt / Mount Aspiring Holiday Park experience has a total of 117 reviews. There are 115 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 115 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 15 |
|
13% |
| 9/10 | 22 |
|
19% |
| 8/10 | 35 |
|
30% |
| 7/10 | 11 |
|
10% |
| 6/10 | 9 |
|
8% |
| 5/10 | 5 |
|
4% |
| 4/10 | 3 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 7 |
|
6% |
| 2/10 | 5 |
|
4% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
3% |
72.17% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Mt / Mount Aspiring Holiday Park valid reviews is 72.17% and is based on 115 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
62 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 115 valid reviews, the experience has 62 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 62 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 5 |
|
8% |
| 9/10 | 17 |
|
27% |
| 8/10 | 23 |
|
37% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
8% |
| 6/10 | 4 |
|
6% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
76.45% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Mt / Mount Aspiring Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 76.45% and is based on 62 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
81.13%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pierre Leroux | 10/10 | 101 days | 100% |
| christina michael | 1/10 | 101 days | 40% |
| Eleanor Jackson | 6/10 | 101 days | 86% |
| david spencer | 8/10 | 132 days | 98% |
| Haydyn Bevis | 8/10 | 132 days | 98% |
| Jenny Hobson-Frohock | 10/10 | 132 days | 100% |
| Amy | 8/10 | 132 days | 98% |
| Marie-Claude Ruata | 8/10 | 160 days | 97% |
| Susan Melgaard Rasmussen | 3/10 | 160 days | 54% |
| Cees Koeman | 10/10 | 160 days | 99% |
| Colin Mitchell | 1/10 | 160 days | 40% |
| Kari Flanagan | 9/10 | 191 days | 98% |
| Paul T Beisser III | 10/10 | 252 days | 97% |
| Viktoria | 10/10 | 497 days | 86% |
| David | 10/10 | 497 days | 86% |
| C Emes | 10/10 | 525 days | 85% |
| Jessica Heinrich | 5/10 | 525 days | 65% |
| Aaron | 8/10 | 648 days | 75% |
| Laura | 7/10 | 678 days | 69% |
| Lu | 8/10 | 891 days | 54% |
| Millie | 10/10 | 953 days | 49% |
| Diana Antunez | 8/10 | 1014 days | 42% |
| Sue | 10/10 | 1197 days | 27% |
| Felix | 9/10 | 1287 days | 21% |
| Charlotte Houël | 6/10 | 1287 days | 18% |
| Pateke | 6/10 | 2383 days | 3% |
| Phoebe | 8/10 | 2414 days | 4% |
| Johannes | 9/10 | 2689 days | 3% |
| Liz | 8/10 | 2689 days | 3% |
| Flatlanders | 6/10 | 2717 days | 3% |
| Maxime | 8/10 | 2748 days | 3% |
| JT | 8/10 | 2748 days | 3% |
| Mahi | 7/10 | 2779 days | 3% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 3023 days | 2% |
| Nicky Edwards | 7/10 | 3067 days | 2% |
| Maureen Allouche | 8/10 | 3074 days | 2% |
| Shira LA | 4/10 | 3082 days | 1% |
| Megan Mosto | 3/10 | 3134 days | 1% |
| Paul and Paula | 7/10 | 3149 days | 2% |
| Tammy Schein | 9/10 | 3173 days | 2% |
| Paul Morris | 7/10 | 3405 days | 2% |
| Laura Arbuthnot | 2/10 | 3563 days | 0% |
| Philippa and Adam | 5/10 | 3816 days | 1% |
| Tom Reber | 3/10 | 3984 days | 0% |
| Leah Stewart | 6/10 | 4209 days | 0% |
| Ben Sheridan | 6/10 | 4555 days | 1% |
| Caren van Gastel | 8/10 | 4575 days | 1% |
| Rory Seaton | 9/10 | 4575 days | 1% |
| Yosh Boy | 1/10 | 4727 days | 0% |
| Fred and Carin | 7/10 | 4959 days | 1% |
| Stefan and Brigit and Janek | 8/10 | 4962 days | 1% |
| Alex Laidlaw | 9/10 | 4977 days | 1% |
| Ton Franke | 8/10 | 4986 days | 1% |
| Ryan J | 3/10 | 5061 days | 0% |
| Robin Sable | 9/10 | 5226 days | 1% |
| Margreet Hanemaaijer | 3/10 | 5231 days | 0% |
| Rien | 9/10 | 5237 days | 1% |
| Matthias Angela | 8/10 | 5239 days | 1% |
| DavidT | 7/10 | 5245 days | 1% |
| lmoore | 2/10 | 5245 days | 0% |
| Vlutters | 8/10 | 5250 days | 1% |
| Elke Ingulf | 8/10 | 5254 days | 1% |
| B Sluis | 8/10 | 5254 days | 1% |
| Richard & Jane | 9/10 | 5254 days | 1% |
| Nigel Horrocks | 8/10 | 5255 days | 1% |
| Sabine & Stefan | 4/10 | 5258 days | 0% |
| Randewyk | 9/10 | 5258 days | 1% |
| Gerrit & Martina | 7/10 | 5259 days | 1% |
| Gabriele Wendt | 8/10 | 5259 days | 1% |
| Butz | 10/10 | 5260 days | 1% |
| David & Sue Lokkerbol | 5/10 | 5260 days | 0% |
| joerem | 2/10 | 5274 days | 0% |
| Brock Wagner | 7/10 | 5593 days | 1% |
| Leon van Hengel | 8/10 | 5594 days | 1% |
| Sophia Kelly | 4/10 | 5595 days | 0% |
| John Duffy | 10/10 | 5597 days | 1% |
| Steve & Pearl Baker | 8/10 | 5601 days | 1% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 5601 days | 1% |
| Bill Cutler | 9/10 | 5601 days | 1% |
| Katherine Forward | 8/10 | 5605 days | 1% |
| Gert Vogelaers | 9/10 | 5614 days | 1% |
| James Jackson | 6/10 | 5629 days | 1% |
| Fabian | 6/10 | 5630 days | 1% |
| Robert Cox | 8/10 | 5630 days | 1% |
| Claire Bulmer | 3/10 | 5634 days | 0% |
| Remco Smit | 10/10 | 5635 days | 1% |
| allan12 | 3/10 | 5670 days | 0% |
| Nuro | 8/10 | 5717 days | 1% |
| Pete & Chris | 2/10 | 5901 days | 0% |
| Lomas | 10/10 | 5906 days | 1% |
| maggie Webster | 8/10 | 5962 days | 1% |
| Giaque | 9/10 | 5982 days | 1% |
| Annie | 8/10 | 5998 days | 1% |
| Susan Hitchins | 9/10 | 6000 days | 1% |
| Terry Phillips | 8/10 | 6001 days | 1% |
| Rob Alston | 5/10 | 6004 days | 0% |
| S Luis Van Oler | 9/10 | 6009 days | 1% |
| Astrio Gregersen | 5/10 | 6033 days | 0% |
| gary mitchell | 10/10 | 6066 days | 1% |
| Colin S | 10/10 | 6074 days | 1% |
| Pia | 9/10 | 6077 days | 1% |
| Roma | 8/10 | 6089 days | 1% |
| Nathalie | 2/10 | 6307 days | 0% |
| Silvia Huerlimann | 6/10 | 6310 days | 1% |
| Thomas1646 | 8/10 | 6317 days | 1% |
| JohnN | 8/10 | 6327 days | 1% |
| Hans | 8/10 | 6327 days | 1% |
| Andy Baker | 9/10 | 6330 days | 1% |
| MrHebbard | 9/10 | 6343 days | 1% |
| CarolB | 8/10 | 6344 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 6344 days | 1% |
| CateNetherlands | 9/10 | 6352 days | 1% |
| Heath | 7/10 | 6355 days | 1% |
| Joery | 8/10 | 6357 days | 1% |
| Ralf | 7/10 | 6409 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 Mt / Mount Aspiring Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.76% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 125 days. However the Mt / Mount Aspiring 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 Mt / Mount Aspiring Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 76 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 73 | -0.73% |
| 74 | -0.74% |
| 75 | -0.75% |
| 76 | -0.76% |
| 77 | -0.77% |
| 78 | -0.78% |
| 79 | -0.79% |
| … | … |
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.