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
89 Valid Reviews
The Hampshire Holiday Park Glendhu Bay experience has a total of 92 reviews. There are 89 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 89 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 24 |
|
27% |
| 9/10 | 22 |
|
25% |
| 8/10 | 16 |
|
18% |
| 7/10 | 11 |
|
12% |
| 6/10 | 7 |
|
8% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
2% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
3% |
79.55% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Hampshire Holiday Park Glendhu Bay valid reviews is 79.55% and is based on 89 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 89 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
74.67%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anonymous | 1/10 | 50 days | 42% |
| Emily | 9/10 | 172 days | 100% |
| Hennie and Eva | 8/10 | 172 days | 99% |
| Kane | 7/10 | 506 days | 82% |
| Pedro | 8/10 | 565 days | 82% |
| Jess Cullen | 8/10 | 565 days | 82% |
| Fabian | 2/10 | 596 days | 37% |
| Anaïs | 6/10 | 688 days | 65% |
| Sandra Staples | 9/10 | 931 days | 51% |
| Molly Turpin | 10/10 | 1084 days | 37% |
| Etoile Rose | 8/10 | 1207 days | 27% |
| Kilee Leblanc | 9/10 | 1237 days | 25% |
| Laz. | 7/10 | 1237 days | 23% |
| Andy | 1/10 | 1268 days | 9% |
| Charlotte Houël | 6/10 | 1327 days | 17% |
| h_yd_n | 8/10 | 1661 days | 6% |
| Julia | 6/10 | 1661 days | 6% |
| Alex Geraghty | 10/10 | 1967 days | 5% |
| Rory | 10/10 | 2026 days | 5% |
| The Gillies | 7/10 | 2026 days | 4% |
| Hamish | 10/10 | 2149 days | 4% |
| Nadia McKay | 10/10 | 2149 days | 4% |
| Ying | 9/10 | 2179 days | 4% |
| Lauren | 9/10 | 2363 days | 4% |
| katrin wattenhofer | 10/10 | 2363 days | 4% |
| Kerry | 10/10 | 2363 days | 4% |
| Howie | 8/10 | 2392 days | 4% |
| Clauds | 9/10 | 2392 days | 4% |
| GM | 9/10 | 2454 days | 4% |
| Alan McGrath | 10/10 | 2484 days | 4% |
| Arndt | 10/10 | 2576 days | 3% |
| Rocket | 7/10 | 2698 days | 3% |
| Rosemary M | 10/10 | 2757 days | 3% |
| Davey | 10/10 | 2757 days | 3% |
| Tash & Laura | 8/10 | 2757 days | 3% |
| Johannes Stahl | 10/10 | 2819 days | 3% |
| Jose | 9/10 | 2819 days | 3% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 2849 days | 3% |
| ian kennedy | 8/10 | 2849 days | 3% |
| Angela | 7/10 | 2880 days | 3% |
| Antony Lewis | 9/10 | 3063 days | 2% |
| Boguslaw MAKIELLO | 7/10 | 3077 days | 2% |
| MJW | 7/10 | 3094 days | 2% |
| The Farrs | 9/10 | 3094 days | 2% |
| Joanna Dring | 9/10 | 3149 days | 2% |
| Rebekka Doliva | 9/10 | 3191 days | 2% |
| Natalie Tomlinson-Kurz | 10/10 | 3245 days | 2% |
| Daniela Pelgrim | 7/10 | 3420 days | 2% |
| Paul Smith | 7/10 | 3458 days | 2% |
| Roeland Driessen | 8/10 | 3518 days | 2% |
| Chloe Po | 8/10 | 3565 days | 1% |
| Nancy LeRoy | 10/10 | 3579 days | 1% |
| Alf Caruana | 10/10 | 3579 days | 1% |
| Kees Denbesten | 9/10 | 3583 days | 1% |
| Linda Carter | 2/10 | 3626 days | 1% |
| Sachiko | 10/10 | 3653 days | 1% |
| Peter Barker | 9/10 | 3802 days | 1% |
| Katrina Thomas | 8/10 | 3884 days | 1% |
| Harriet Bramley | 6/10 | 4009 days | 0% |
| svenja spiegel | 6/10 | 4156 days | 0% |
| Joanne Robertson | 10/10 | 4287 days | 0% |
| Helen McKevitt | 10/10 | 4561 days | 1% |
| chris dagg | 1/10 | 4706 days | 0% |
| Jonathan Vondette | 10/10 | 5001 days | 1% |
| Knorr Bracher | 10/10 | 5014 days | 1% |
| James Huntzinger | 8/10 | 5276 days | 1% |
| Wil de Kubber | 6/10 | 5290 days | 0% |
| Michael & Janet | 4/10 | 5295 days | 0% |
| Richard Maddock | 9/10 | 5302 days | 1% |
| Dave McLeish | 10/10 | 5312 days | 1% |
| Hayden Parker | 10/10 | 5345 days | 1% |
| qofd | 7/10 | 5590 days | 1% |
| susanjourdan | 6/10 | 5620 days | 1% |
| kelso | 7/10 | 5620 days | 1% |
| Chris Forrest | 4/10 | 5630 days | 0% |
| Nicolas | 5/10 | 5652 days | 0% |
| Sandra | 8/10 | 5656 days | 1% |
| Katie Nicol | 8/10 | 5664 days | 1% |
| Ewald Waldner | 9/10 | 5675 days | 1% |
| Bob Lenihan | 9/10 | 6002 days | 1% |
| Graeme + Jane Ryan | 10/10 | 6006 days | 1% |
| Chris el capitan | 3/10 | 6021 days | 0% |
| Maria Newton | 8/10 | 6026 days | 1% |
| Kyle Riseley | 9/10 | 6117 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Jenner | 9/10 | 6117 days | 1% |
| Uerilie Stolareh | 10/10 | 6119 days | 1% |
| Dave Ashun | 9/10 | 6357 days | 1% |
| Renee | 9/10 | 6399 days | 1% |
| aussiesi | 9/10 | 6806 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
-0.23% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 109 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 19 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 16 | -0.19% |
| 17 | -0.20% |
| 18 | -0.21% |
| 19 | -0.23% |
| 20 | -0.24% |
| 21 | -0.25% |
| 22 | -0.26% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.86% 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
79%
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.