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 Hampshire Holiday Park Glendhu Bay.
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.
Hampshire Holiday Park Glendhu Bay
Valid Reviews
88 Valid Reviews
The Hampshire Holiday Park Glendhu Bay experience has a total of 91 reviews. There are 88 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 88 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 24 |
|
27% |
| 9/10 | 22 |
|
25% |
| 8/10 | 16 |
|
18% |
| 7/10 | 11 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 7 |
|
8% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 1/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
80.34% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Hampshire Holiday Park Glendhu Bay valid reviews is 80.34% and is based on 88 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
24 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 88 valid reviews, the experience has 24 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 24 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 7 |
|
29% |
| 9/10 | 7 |
|
29% |
| 8/10 | 4 |
|
17% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
4% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
4% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
4% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
8% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
4% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
80.83% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Hampshire Holiday Park Glendhu Bay face-to-face reviews is 80.83% and is based on 24 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
77.61%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emily | 9/10 | 112 days | 100% |
| Hennie and Eva | 8/10 | 112 days | 99% |
| Kane | 7/10 | 446 days | 84% |
| Pedro | 8/10 | 505 days | 85% |
| Jess Cullen | 8/10 | 505 days | 85% |
| Fabian | 2/10 | 536 days | 39% |
| Anaïs | 6/10 | 628 days | 68% |
| Sandra Staples | 9/10 | 871 days | 57% |
| Molly Turpin | 10/10 | 1024 days | 42% |
| Etoile Rose | 8/10 | 1147 days | 31% |
| Kilee Leblanc | 9/10 | 1177 days | 29% |
| Laz. | 7/10 | 1177 days | 27% |
| Andy | 1/10 | 1208 days | 11% |
| Charlotte Houël | 6/10 | 1267 days | 20% |
| h_yd_n | 8/10 | 1601 days | 8% |
| Julia | 6/10 | 1601 days | 7% |
| Alex Geraghty | 10/10 | 1907 days | 5% |
| Rory | 10/10 | 1966 days | 5% |
| The Gillies | 7/10 | 1966 days | 4% |
| Hamish | 10/10 | 2089 days | 4% |
| Nadia McKay | 10/10 | 2089 days | 4% |
| Ying | 9/10 | 2119 days | 4% |
| Lauren | 9/10 | 2303 days | 4% |
| katrin wattenhofer | 10/10 | 2303 days | 4% |
| Kerry | 10/10 | 2303 days | 4% |
| Howie | 8/10 | 2332 days | 4% |
| Clauds | 9/10 | 2332 days | 4% |
| GM | 9/10 | 2394 days | 4% |
| Alan McGrath | 10/10 | 2424 days | 4% |
| Arndt | 10/10 | 2516 days | 3% |
| Rocket | 7/10 | 2638 days | 3% |
| Rosemary M | 10/10 | 2697 days | 3% |
| Davey | 10/10 | 2697 days | 3% |
| Tash & Laura | 8/10 | 2697 days | 3% |
| Johannes Stahl | 10/10 | 2759 days | 3% |
| Jose | 9/10 | 2759 days | 3% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 2789 days | 3% |
| ian kennedy | 8/10 | 2789 days | 3% |
| Angela | 7/10 | 2820 days | 3% |
| Antony Lewis | 9/10 | 3003 days | 2% |
| Boguslaw MAKIELLO | 7/10 | 3017 days | 2% |
| MJW | 7/10 | 3034 days | 2% |
| The Farrs | 9/10 | 3034 days | 2% |
| Joanna Dring | 9/10 | 3089 days | 2% |
| Rebekka Doliva | 9/10 | 3131 days | 2% |
| Natalie Tomlinson-Kurz | 10/10 | 3184 days | 2% |
| Daniela Pelgrim | 7/10 | 3360 days | 2% |
| Paul Smith | 7/10 | 3398 days | 2% |
| Roeland Driessen | 8/10 | 3457 days | 2% |
| Chloe Po | 8/10 | 3505 days | 1% |
| Nancy LeRoy | 10/10 | 3518 days | 1% |
| Alf Caruana | 10/10 | 3519 days | 1% |
| Kees Denbesten | 9/10 | 3523 days | 1% |
| Linda Carter | 2/10 | 3566 days | 0% |
| Sachiko | 10/10 | 3593 days | 1% |
| Peter Barker | 9/10 | 3742 days | 1% |
| Katrina Thomas | 8/10 | 3824 days | 1% |
| Harriet Bramley | 6/10 | 3949 days | 0% |
| svenja spiegel | 6/10 | 4096 days | 0% |
| Joanne Robertson | 10/10 | 4227 days | 0% |
| Helen McKevitt | 10/10 | 4501 days | 1% |
| chris dagg | 1/10 | 4646 days | 0% |
| Jonathan Vondette | 10/10 | 4941 days | 1% |
| Knorr Bracher | 10/10 | 4954 days | 1% |
| James Huntzinger | 8/10 | 5216 days | 0% |
| Wil de Kubber | 6/10 | 5230 days | 0% |
| Michael & Janet | 4/10 | 5235 days | 0% |
| Richard Maddock | 9/10 | 5242 days | 1% |
| Dave McLeish | 10/10 | 5252 days | 1% |
| Hayden Parker | 10/10 | 5285 days | 1% |
| qofd | 7/10 | 5530 days | 1% |
| susanjourdan | 6/10 | 5560 days | 1% |
| kelso | 7/10 | 5560 days | 1% |
| Chris Forrest | 4/10 | 5570 days | 0% |
| Nicolas | 5/10 | 5592 days | 0% |
| Sandra | 8/10 | 5596 days | 0% |
| Katie Nicol | 8/10 | 5604 days | 0% |
| Ewald Waldner | 9/10 | 5615 days | 1% |
| Bob Lenihan | 9/10 | 5942 days | 1% |
| Graeme + Jane Ryan | 10/10 | 5946 days | 1% |
| Chris el capitan | 3/10 | 5961 days | 0% |
| Maria Newton | 8/10 | 5966 days | 0% |
| Kyle Riseley | 9/10 | 6057 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Jenner | 9/10 | 6057 days | 1% |
| Uerilie Stolareh | 10/10 | 6059 days | 1% |
| Dave Ashun | 9/10 | 6297 days | 1% |
| Renee | 9/10 | 6339 days | 1% |
| aussiesi | 9/10 | 6746 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 Hampshire Holiday Park Glendhu Bay experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.94% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 119 days. However the Hampshire Holiday Park Glendhu Bay 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 Hampshire Holiday Park Glendhu Bay experience has been adjusted for 88 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 85 | -0.91% |
| 86 | -0.92% |
| 87 | -0.93% |
| 88 | -0.94% |
| 89 | -0.95% |
| 90 | -0.96% |
| 91 | -0.97% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.03% 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
81%
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.