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
86 Valid Reviews
The Hampshire Holiday Park Glendhu Bay experience has a total of 89 reviews. There are 86 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 86 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 24 |
|
28% |
| 9/10 | 21 |
|
24% |
| 8/10 | 15 |
|
17% |
| 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% |
80.23% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Hampshire Holiday Park Glendhu Bay valid reviews is 80.23% and is based on 86 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 86 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
75.68%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kane | 7/10 | 263 days | 97% |
| Pedro | 8/10 | 322 days | 100% |
| Jess Cullen | 8/10 | 322 days | 100% |
| Fabian | 2/10 | 353 days | 46% |
| Anaïs | 6/10 | 445 days | 83% |
| Sandra Staples | 9/10 | 688 days | 78% |
| Molly Turpin | 10/10 | 841 days | 65% |
| Etoile Rose | 8/10 | 964 days | 50% |
| Kilee Leblanc | 9/10 | 994 days | 48% |
| Laz. | 7/10 | 994 days | 45% |
| Andy | 1/10 | 1025 days | 18% |
| Charlotte Houël | 6/10 | 1084 days | 34% |
| h_yd_n | 8/10 | 1418 days | 15% |
| Julia | 6/10 | 1418 days | 13% |
| Alex Geraghty | 10/10 | 1724 days | 6% |
| Rory | 10/10 | 1783 days | 5% |
| The Gillies | 7/10 | 1783 days | 5% |
| Hamish | 10/10 | 1906 days | 5% |
| Nadia McKay | 10/10 | 1906 days | 5% |
| Ying | 9/10 | 1936 days | 5% |
| Lauren | 9/10 | 2120 days | 5% |
| katrin wattenhofer | 10/10 | 2120 days | 5% |
| Kerry | 10/10 | 2120 days | 5% |
| Howie | 8/10 | 2149 days | 5% |
| Clauds | 9/10 | 2149 days | 5% |
| GM | 9/10 | 2211 days | 4% |
| Alan McGrath | 10/10 | 2241 days | 4% |
| Arndt | 10/10 | 2333 days | 4% |
| Rocket | 7/10 | 2455 days | 4% |
| Rosemary M | 10/10 | 2514 days | 4% |
| Davey | 10/10 | 2514 days | 4% |
| Tash & Laura | 8/10 | 2514 days | 4% |
| Johannes Stahl | 10/10 | 2576 days | 4% |
| Jose | 9/10 | 2576 days | 4% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 2606 days | 4% |
| ian kennedy | 8/10 | 2606 days | 4% |
| Angela | 7/10 | 2637 days | 3% |
| Antony Lewis | 9/10 | 2820 days | 3% |
| Boguslaw MAKIELLO | 7/10 | 2834 days | 2% |
| MJW | 7/10 | 2851 days | 3% |
| The Farrs | 9/10 | 2851 days | 3% |
| Joanna Dring | 9/10 | 2906 days | 3% |
| Rebekka Doliva | 9/10 | 2948 days | 3% |
| Natalie Tomlinson-Kurz | 10/10 | 3002 days | 3% |
| Daniela Pelgrim | 7/10 | 3177 days | 2% |
| Paul Smith | 7/10 | 3215 days | 2% |
| Roeland Driessen | 8/10 | 3275 days | 2% |
| Chloe Po | 8/10 | 3322 days | 2% |
| Nancy LeRoy | 10/10 | 3336 days | 2% |
| Alf Caruana | 10/10 | 3336 days | 2% |
| Kees Denbesten | 9/10 | 3340 days | 2% |
| Linda Carter | 2/10 | 3383 days | 1% |
| Sachiko | 10/10 | 3410 days | 2% |
| Peter Barker | 9/10 | 3559 days | 2% |
| Katrina Thomas | 8/10 | 3641 days | 1% |
| Harriet Bramley | 6/10 | 3766 days | 1% |
| svenja spiegel | 6/10 | 3913 days | 1% |
| Joanne Robertson | 10/10 | 4044 days | 0% |
| Helen McKevitt | 10/10 | 4318 days | 0% |
| chris dagg | 1/10 | 4463 days | 0% |
| Jonathan Vondette | 10/10 | 4758 days | 1% |
| Knorr Bracher | 10/10 | 4771 days | 1% |
| James Huntzinger | 8/10 | 5033 days | 1% |
| Wil de Kubber | 6/10 | 5047 days | 1% |
| Michael & Janet | 4/10 | 5052 days | 0% |
| Richard Maddock | 9/10 | 5059 days | 1% |
| Dave McLeish | 10/10 | 5069 days | 1% |
| Hayden Parker | 10/10 | 5102 days | 1% |
| qofd | 7/10 | 5347 days | 1% |
| susanjourdan | 6/10 | 5377 days | 1% |
| kelso | 7/10 | 5377 days | 1% |
| Chris Forrest | 4/10 | 5387 days | 0% |
| Nicolas | 5/10 | 5409 days | 0% |
| Sandra | 8/10 | 5413 days | 1% |
| Katie Nicol | 8/10 | 5421 days | 1% |
| Ewald Waldner | 9/10 | 5432 days | 1% |
| Bob Lenihan | 9/10 | 5759 days | 1% |
| Graeme + Jane Ryan | 10/10 | 5763 days | 1% |
| Chris el capitan | 3/10 | 5778 days | 0% |
| Maria Newton | 8/10 | 5783 days | 1% |
| Kyle Riseley | 9/10 | 5874 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Jenner | 9/10 | 5874 days | 1% |
| Uerilie Stolareh | 10/10 | 5876 days | 1% |
| Dave Ashun | 9/10 | 6114 days | 1% |
| Renee | 9/10 | 6156 days | 1% |
| aussiesi | 9/10 | 6563 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
-4.04% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 41 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 200 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 197 | -3.98% |
| 198 | -4.00% |
| 199 | -4.02% |
| 200 | -4.04% |
| 201 | -4.06% |
| 202 | -4.08% |
| 203 | -4.10% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
6.13% 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
78%
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.