G'day, 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
77.60%
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 | 100 days | 100% |
| Hennie and Eva | 8/10 | 100 days | 99% |
| Kane | 7/10 | 434 days | 84% |
| Pedro | 8/10 | 493 days | 86% |
| Jess Cullen | 8/10 | 493 days | 86% |
| Fabian | 2/10 | 524 days | 39% |
| Anaïs | 6/10 | 616 days | 68% |
| Sandra Staples | 9/10 | 859 days | 58% |
| Molly Turpin | 10/10 | 1012 days | 43% |
| Etoile Rose | 8/10 | 1135 days | 32% |
| Kilee Leblanc | 9/10 | 1165 days | 30% |
| Laz. | 7/10 | 1165 days | 28% |
| Andy | 1/10 | 1196 days | 11% |
| Charlotte Houël | 6/10 | 1255 days | 20% |
| h_yd_n | 8/10 | 1589 days | 8% |
| Julia | 6/10 | 1589 days | 7% |
| Alex Geraghty | 10/10 | 1895 days | 5% |
| Rory | 10/10 | 1954 days | 5% |
| The Gillies | 7/10 | 1954 days | 4% |
| Hamish | 10/10 | 2077 days | 4% |
| Nadia McKay | 10/10 | 2077 days | 4% |
| Ying | 9/10 | 2107 days | 4% |
| Lauren | 9/10 | 2291 days | 4% |
| katrin wattenhofer | 10/10 | 2291 days | 4% |
| Kerry | 10/10 | 2291 days | 4% |
| Howie | 8/10 | 2320 days | 4% |
| Clauds | 9/10 | 2320 days | 4% |
| GM | 9/10 | 2382 days | 4% |
| Alan McGrath | 10/10 | 2412 days | 4% |
| Arndt | 10/10 | 2504 days | 3% |
| Rocket | 7/10 | 2626 days | 3% |
| Rosemary M | 10/10 | 2685 days | 3% |
| Davey | 10/10 | 2685 days | 3% |
| Tash & Laura | 8/10 | 2685 days | 3% |
| Johannes Stahl | 10/10 | 2747 days | 3% |
| Jose | 9/10 | 2747 days | 3% |
| Sarah | 8/10 | 2777 days | 3% |
| ian kennedy | 8/10 | 2777 days | 3% |
| Angela | 7/10 | 2808 days | 3% |
| Antony Lewis | 9/10 | 2991 days | 2% |
| Boguslaw MAKIELLO | 7/10 | 3005 days | 2% |
| MJW | 7/10 | 3022 days | 2% |
| The Farrs | 9/10 | 3022 days | 2% |
| Joanna Dring | 9/10 | 3077 days | 2% |
| Rebekka Doliva | 9/10 | 3119 days | 2% |
| Natalie Tomlinson-Kurz | 10/10 | 3173 days | 2% |
| Daniela Pelgrim | 7/10 | 3348 days | 2% |
| Paul Smith | 7/10 | 3386 days | 2% |
| Roeland Driessen | 8/10 | 3446 days | 1% |
| Chloe Po | 8/10 | 3493 days | 1% |
| Nancy LeRoy | 10/10 | 3507 days | 1% |
| Alf Caruana | 10/10 | 3507 days | 1% |
| Kees Denbesten | 9/10 | 3511 days | 1% |
| Linda Carter | 2/10 | 3554 days | 0% |
| Sachiko | 10/10 | 3581 days | 1% |
| Peter Barker | 9/10 | 3730 days | 1% |
| Katrina Thomas | 8/10 | 3812 days | 1% |
| Harriet Bramley | 6/10 | 3937 days | 0% |
| svenja spiegel | 6/10 | 4084 days | 0% |
| Joanne Robertson | 10/10 | 4215 days | 0% |
| Helen McKevitt | 10/10 | 4489 days | 0% |
| chris dagg | 1/10 | 4634 days | 0% |
| Jonathan Vondette | 10/10 | 4929 days | 0% |
| Knorr Bracher | 10/10 | 4942 days | 0% |
| James Huntzinger | 8/10 | 5204 days | 0% |
| Wil de Kubber | 6/10 | 5218 days | 0% |
| Michael & Janet | 4/10 | 5223 days | 0% |
| Richard Maddock | 9/10 | 5230 days | 0% |
| Dave McLeish | 10/10 | 5240 days | 0% |
| Hayden Parker | 10/10 | 5273 days | 1% |
| qofd | 7/10 | 5518 days | 1% |
| susanjourdan | 6/10 | 5548 days | 1% |
| kelso | 7/10 | 5548 days | 1% |
| Chris Forrest | 4/10 | 5558 days | 0% |
| Nicolas | 5/10 | 5580 days | 0% |
| Sandra | 8/10 | 5584 days | 0% |
| Katie Nicol | 8/10 | 5592 days | 0% |
| Ewald Waldner | 9/10 | 5603 days | 0% |
| Bob Lenihan | 9/10 | 5930 days | 0% |
| Graeme + Jane Ryan | 10/10 | 5934 days | 0% |
| Chris el capitan | 3/10 | 5949 days | 0% |
| Maria Newton | 8/10 | 5954 days | 0% |
| Kyle Riseley | 9/10 | 6045 days | 0% |
| Rebecca Jenner | 9/10 | 6045 days | 0% |
| Uerilie Stolareh | 10/10 | 6047 days | 0% |
| Dave Ashun | 9/10 | 6285 days | 0% |
| Renee | 9/10 | 6327 days | 0% |
| aussiesi | 9/10 | 6734 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
-0.88% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 112 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 76 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 73 | -0.84% |
| 74 | -0.85% |
| 75 | -0.87% |
| 76 | -0.88% |
| 77 | -0.89% |
| 78 | -0.90% |
| 79 | -0.91% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
4.02% 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.