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 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
77.56%
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 | 72 days | 100% |
| Hennie and Eva | 8/10 | 72 days | 99% |
| Kane | 7/10 | 406 days | 85% |
| Pedro | 8/10 | 465 days | 87% |
| Jess Cullen | 8/10 | 465 days | 87% |
| Fabian | 2/10 | 496 days | 39% |
| Anaïs | 6/10 | 588 days | 70% |
| Sandra Staples | 9/10 | 831 days | 61% |
| Molly Turpin | 10/10 | 984 days | 46% |
| Etoile Rose | 8/10 | 1107 days | 34% |
| Kilee Leblanc | 9/10 | 1137 days | 32% |
| Laz. | 7/10 | 1137 days | 30% |
| Andy | 1/10 | 1168 days | 12% |
| Charlotte Houël | 6/10 | 1227 days | 22% |
| h_yd_n | 8/10 | 1561 days | 9% |
| Julia | 6/10 | 1561 days | 7% |
| Alex Geraghty | 10/10 | 1867 days | 5% |
| Rory | 10/10 | 1926 days | 4% |
| The Gillies | 7/10 | 1926 days | 4% |
| Hamish | 10/10 | 2049 days | 4% |
| Nadia McKay | 10/10 | 2049 days | 4% |
| Ying | 9/10 | 2079 days | 4% |
| Lauren | 9/10 | 2263 days | 4% |
| katrin wattenhofer | 10/10 | 2263 days | 4% |
| Kerry | 10/10 | 2263 days | 4% |
| Howie | 8/10 | 2292 days | 4% |
| Clauds | 9/10 | 2292 days | 4% |
| GM | 9/10 | 2354 days | 4% |
| Alan McGrath | 10/10 | 2384 days | 4% |
| Arndt | 10/10 | 2476 days | 3% |
| Rocket | 7/10 | 2598 days | 3% |
| Rosemary M | 10/10 | 2657 days | 3% |
| Davey | 10/10 | 2657 days | 3% |
| Tash & Laura | 8/10 | 2657 days | 3% |
| Johannes Stahl | 10/10 | 2719 days | 3% |
| Jose | 9/10 | 2719 days | 3% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 2749 days | 3% |
| ian kennedy | 8/10 | 2749 days | 3% |
| Angela | 7/10 | 2780 days | 3% |
| Antony Lewis | 9/10 | 2963 days | 2% |
| Boguslaw MAKIELLO | 7/10 | 2977 days | 2% |
| MJW | 7/10 | 2994 days | 2% |
| The Farrs | 9/10 | 2994 days | 2% |
| Joanna Dring | 9/10 | 3049 days | 2% |
| Rebekka Doliva | 9/10 | 3091 days | 2% |
| Natalie Tomlinson-Kurz | 10/10 | 3144 days | 2% |
| Daniela Pelgrim | 7/10 | 3320 days | 2% |
| Paul Smith | 7/10 | 3358 days | 2% |
| Roeland Driessen | 8/10 | 3417 days | 1% |
| Chloe Po | 8/10 | 3465 days | 1% |
| Nancy LeRoy | 10/10 | 3478 days | 1% |
| Alf Caruana | 10/10 | 3479 days | 1% |
| Kees Denbesten | 9/10 | 3483 days | 1% |
| Linda Carter | 2/10 | 3526 days | 0% |
| Sachiko | 10/10 | 3553 days | 1% |
| Peter Barker | 9/10 | 3702 days | 1% |
| Katrina Thomas | 8/10 | 3784 days | 1% |
| Harriet Bramley | 6/10 | 3909 days | 0% |
| svenja spiegel | 6/10 | 4056 days | 0% |
| Joanne Robertson | 10/10 | 4187 days | 0% |
| Helen McKevitt | 10/10 | 4461 days | 0% |
| chris dagg | 1/10 | 4606 days | 0% |
| Jonathan Vondette | 10/10 | 4901 days | 0% |
| Knorr Bracher | 10/10 | 4914 days | 0% |
| James Huntzinger | 8/10 | 5176 days | 0% |
| Wil de Kubber | 6/10 | 5190 days | 0% |
| Michael & Janet | 4/10 | 5195 days | 0% |
| Richard Maddock | 9/10 | 5202 days | 0% |
| Dave McLeish | 10/10 | 5212 days | 0% |
| Hayden Parker | 10/10 | 5245 days | 1% |
| qofd | 7/10 | 5490 days | 1% |
| susanjourdan | 6/10 | 5520 days | 0% |
| kelso | 7/10 | 5520 days | 1% |
| Chris Forrest | 4/10 | 5530 days | 0% |
| Nicolas | 5/10 | 5552 days | 0% |
| Sandra | 8/10 | 5556 days | 0% |
| Katie Nicol | 8/10 | 5564 days | 0% |
| Ewald Waldner | 9/10 | 5575 days | 0% |
| Bob Lenihan | 9/10 | 5902 days | 0% |
| Graeme + Jane Ryan | 10/10 | 5906 days | 0% |
| Chris el capitan | 3/10 | 5921 days | 0% |
| Maria Newton | 8/10 | 5926 days | 0% |
| Kyle Riseley | 9/10 | 6017 days | 0% |
| Rebecca Jenner | 9/10 | 6017 days | 0% |
| Uerilie Stolareh | 10/10 | 6019 days | 0% |
| Dave Ashun | 9/10 | 6257 days | 0% |
| Renee | 9/10 | 6299 days | 0% |
| aussiesi | 9/10 | 6706 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
-0.69% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 88 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 48 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 45 | -0.65% |
| 46 | -0.66% |
| 47 | -0.67% |
| 48 | -0.69% |
| 49 | -0.70% |
| 50 | -0.72% |
| 51 | -0.73% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
3.96% 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.